Arjula Tirumal vs The State Of Ap.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 4152 Tel

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

             CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4205 & 4289 OF 2013
COMMON ORDER:

1       Criminal Petition No.4205 of 2013 is filed by petitioner / Accused No.4

to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.178 of 2012 on the file of the Court of

the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, concerned

with Cr.No.180 of 2012 on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 406 of IPC

and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.


2       Criminal Petition No.4289 of 2013 is filed by petitioners / Accused

Nos.1 and 3 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.178 of 2012 on the file of

the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,

concerned with Cr.No.180 of 2012 on the file of Central Crime Station,

Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

420, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.


3       Since the point involved in both the cases is one and the same and

since both the criminal petitions arise out of the registration of same

calendar case in which the petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1,

3 and 4, both the criminal petitions are disposed of by this common order.


4       It is reported that the petitioner No.2 / accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.4289

of 2013 had expired and the proceedings are pending only against petitioner

No.1.
                                         2

5      The factual matrix that led to the filing of these two criminal petitions,

in brief, are that the marriage of the first accused and the daughter of the

second respondent was solemnised on 24.8.2008 at Hanumakonda. The

allegations levelled against the accused are that the first accused assured

will bring necessary papers to take his wife Sindhura Reddy (daughter of the

second respondent / de facto complainant herein) to USA along with him

immediately after the marriage. At the time of marriage, the second

respondent gave Rs.5.00 lakhs of cash to the accused towards lanchanams

and other requisites. After the marriage and during the stay of the fourth

accused in India, she used to harass the daughter of the second respondent

with dire consequences as the amount given to her was not enough. The

first accused left for USA after the marriage. But he has not sent the

required papers to the daughter of the second respondent to go to USA.

Since she is married to a person already staying in USA, she was not

granted student visa. However, by God's grace, she could get Visa to go to

USA, but, the first accused or his parents did not take steps to receive her

and that they have also not taken proper steps for her stay and study at

USA. Hence she lived separately in USA at the costs and expenses of her

father i.e. second respondent herein. Even then the first accused used to

disturb her studies by going to her college and hostel room by taking girls.

In India also the in laws of Sindhura subjected her to cruelty. The father of

the first accused demanded the father of Sindhura i.e. second respondent

herein an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards additional dowry. The second

respondent gave that amount keeping in view the well being of his

daughter. During the first week of September, 2011 the father of the first

accused died in USA. The accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 did not allow Sindhura to

attend the funerals and they scolded her in filthy language. On coming to

know about the arrival of the accused to India, the second respondent

herein and others went to the house of the accused to express their

condolences, but the accused did not allow them. The second respondent

herein also gifted a house plot worth of Rs.60.00 lakhs to her daughter and

the first accused for their betterment. Even then the accused used to ill

treat Sindhura and harass her and subjected her to cruelty for additional

dowry. Hence the complaint, which was registered a case in Cr.No.180 of

2012 on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. These two criminal petitions are filed to quash the

proceedings therein.

6 The second respondent filed counter affidavit in crl.P.No.4205 of 2013

denying the various averments made in both the petitions.

7 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even according

to the charge sheet accused Nos.1 and 4 i.e. petitioners in both the criminal

petitions left to USA immediately after the marriage and they did not live

under the same roof at all. He further submitted that the daughter of the

second respondent by name Sindhura barely lived with the first accused and

hence it is highly unbelievable that he committed any harassment towards

Sindhura. The 4th accused also left for USA immediately after the marriage

and hence had also had no occasion to harass Sindhura. Moreover, 4th

accused is living separately at USA along with her husband. The learned

counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the present report was

lodged on 26.3.2012 after A.1 filed for divorce in USA on 17.02.2012 as a

counterblast. He further submitted that during the divorce proceedings in

USA, Sindhura did not plead any harassment and divorce was granted on

07.3.2014. Thereafter, Sindhura re-married and has also filed a case

through her father against the petitioners herein vide Crime No.494 of 2021

on the file of Saroornagar WPS, Rachakonda District under Sections 498-A,

417, 406 and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and

a charge sheet has also been filed vide C.C.No.1873 of 2022 and it is

pending trial. He further submitted that the daughter of the second

respondent also filed O.P.No.1194 of 205 on the file of the Court of the

Additional Family Court, Hyderabad for recovery of cash, gold and silver

ornaments and also for damages, which was dismissed observing that the

de facto complainant failed to prove her case that such cash and ornaments

were entrusted to the accused.

8 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent

submitted that the accused took the amounts and ornaments from them as

lanchanams, gifts and presentations and not in the form of dowry. The

accused converted the ornaments into cash and utilised the same for their

personal use. The first accused was addicted to vices. He used to torture

Sindhura both mentally and physically. The learned counsel for the second

respondent relied on the judgments reported in Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State

NCT of Delhi 1, Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri

Satyanarayana Reddy 2, Pramod Rs. Vs. State of Karnataka 3 and

Delhi International Airport Private Limited Vs. Union of India 4

9 The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that truth or

otherwise will come to light only a full fledged trial is conducted and this is

not the stage to quash the proceedings.

10 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of

the material available on record, I am of the considered view that the

petitioners in both the cases deserve the relief prayed for. In the instant

case there is nothing on record to show that the first accused and Sindhura

lived together as husband and wife even for a short span of time. So also

the fourth accused also left for USA immediately after the marriage of the

first accused and Sindhura. The order of the civil court shows that there is

no entrustment of any property to the petitioners which they mismanaged or

managed for themselves. As seen from the record, the Family Courts in USA

1 (1999) 3 SCC 259 2 (2011) 12 SCC 437 3 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 26 4 (2011) 12 SCC 449

have granted divorce in favour of the first petitioner. It is an admitted fact

that Sindhura subsequently married another person. Even according to

Sindhura, in USA also they lived separately. So there is no chance of the first

petitioner harassing the de facto complainant's daughter Sindhura. It is only

after the Family Court at USA granting divorce, the second respondent

lodged the complaint against the petitioners as a counter-blast. Therefore, it

seems that the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide

and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive

for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge.

11 The uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint and the

evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of

the alleged offence and make out a case against the accused and that the

allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable

on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion

that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is to be

seen further from the record that Sindhura also filed a similar complaint

against one Ramakanth, whom she married subsequent to the divorce

granted by the Courts at USA in favour of the first accused herein. It seems

that the proceedings in the said case were also quashed against the said

Ramakanth and others. This type of conduct on the part of Sindhura gives a

negative impression against her attitude. The judgments cited by the

learned counsel for the second respondent are no way helpful to the case of

the second respondent in view of the material available on record.

12 For the above discussion, both the criminal petitions are allowed

quashing the proceedings against the accused Nos.1 and 4 respectively in

C.C.No.178 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending

in both the criminal petitions shall stand closed.

------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 20.11.2023 Kvsn