Telangana High Court
Gundu Sandhya And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 17 October, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5345 OF 2019
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/2 & 3 in C.C.No.1140 of 2019 pending on
the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir-
Yadagiri, erstwhile Nalgonda District.
2. The case of the 2nd respondent/complainant is that she was
married to A1 on 27.05.2015. The father-in-law passed away and
mother-in-law was suffering from mental ill-health at the time of
marriage. Petitioners herein, who are sister of A1 and her husband
demanded Rs.15.00 lakhs dowry at the time of marriage.
However, 11 tulas gold and Rs.1.00 lakh cash was given. The 2nd
respondent was working as software engineer and at the instance
of these petitioners, she was forced to give her salary to the
husband/A1. However, when she refused, she was necked out
from the house. Her parents convinced and left her with A1 and
she was paying Rs.15,000/- for three months and thereafter, she
became pregnant. Again, the entire salary was asked to be given
along with her ATM details. She purchased a house for sale
consideration of Rs.33,60,000/- and the amount of Rs.70,037/-
was being deducted from the salary towards EMI. She gave birth to
a female child and harassment continued since the amount was
not sufficient to bear the expenditure for the child and she was
asked to go away.
3. O the basis of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent on
25.03.2019, charge sheet was filed against A1 and these
petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A, 506 of IPC and
Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the 2nd petitioner/A3 is a practicing Advocate and living
separately at Nallakunta. A1 and 2nd respondent were living in
Lingampally area and both purchased house by taking loan from
the Bank. They have nothing to do with the marital affairs of A1
and the 2nd respondent. In fact, the 2nd respondent left the house
of A1 on 21.10.2018 from Lingampally and was staying at her
parents' house till filing of the complaint. On 09.01.2019, A1 had
filed divorce application which is pending before the Family Court
at Kukatpally. He had also lodged complaint with the Station
House Officer, Bibinagar and copies were also sent to DCP,
Bhongir, Rachakonda Commissionerate, ACP, Bhongir. However,
no action was initiated against the 2nd respondent.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent would submit that there are serious allegations
against these petitioners and specifically made regarding demand
of dowry and assaulting the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.
It is mentioned in the complaint that she was forced to part with
her salary, which constitutes an offence under Section 498-A of
IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly,
petition has to be dismissed.
6. It is admitted by both the sides that these petitioners were
living separately even before the marriage of A1 and 2nd
Respondent. Though the address shown in the charge sheet of A1
is shown as Nallakunta, but he was not staying at the said place.
A1 and 2nd respondent after marriage were living separately. A1
had to take care of his mother, who admittedly was mentally
unsound.
7. From the complaint lodged by A1 on 03.01.2019 and
subsequent divorce application on 09.01.2019, serious allegations
of harassment and cruelty are attributed to the 2nd
respondent/wife . Even according to the complaint, the 2nd
respondent, A1 and his mother were living at Bibinagar. In the
divorce application, A1 had stated that the 2nd respondent was
insisting that the mother of A1 should be left at Old age home,
failing which, she threatened to commit suicide.
8. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of
Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that unless there are specific and distinct allegations
against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding
against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and
omnibus allegations.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v.
State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] held that
the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care
and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who
were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with
the couple.
10. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1083).
11. In the case of Chandralekha v. State of Rajasthan in
Criminal Appeal No.2070 of 2012, dated 14.12.2012, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that in the back ground of vague allegations,
the proceedings were quashed in the FIR against sister-in-law.
12. In the case of Kartik Chandra Majee alias Kartik Chand
Majee and others v. State of Jharkhand and another ((2019) 1
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 747), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
quashed the proceedings since it was found that there was no
specific role attributed. However, criminal proceedings were
initiated to put pressure on the husband and relatives.
Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed.
13. In the present case, A1 was working and so also, the 2nd
respondent with different employers. A1 was also taking care of his
mother, who was mentally ill. They were staying at Bibinagar and
these petitioners were staying at Nallakunta, which is at a
traveling distance of nearly 1 ½ hours. Petitioners have their own
family to look after and the allegations that these petitioners were
interfering and instigating A1 appears to be highly improbable. By
the time A1 and 2nd respondent were married, these petitioners
were married and living separately.
14. Criminal complaint was filed against 2nd respondent by A1
and also filed divorce application on the ground of cruelty. Nearly
three months after the divorce application was filed, criminal
complaint was made before the police making vague allegations
against these petitioners.
15. Following the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
above judgments, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners since continuance of criminal
proceedings against these petitioners on vague and bald
allegations amounts to abuse of process of law.
16. In the result, the proceedings against petitioners/A2 & A3 in
C.C.No.1140 of 2019 pending on the file of Principal Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Bhongir-Yadagiri, erstwhile Nalgonda District,
are hereby quashed.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently,
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 17.10.2023
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5345 OF 2019
Dt. 17.10.2023
kvs
