Telangana High Court

Sundari Naveen Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana on 19 October, 2023

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.8660 OF 2023

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.')

by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the

proceedings against them in C.C.No.114 of 2023 on the file

of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate

(Prohibition and Excise Court), Nalgonda, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 and

406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').

02. The Petitioner No.1 is the accused No.1,

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the mother and father of

accused No.1.

03. The de-facto complainant, who is respondent

No.2 herein, after one year of her marriage, has preferred a

complaint initially against petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3

vide report dated 11.08.2022, which was registered as a

case in FIR.No.83 of 2022, for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 and 406 read

with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that there was no iota of allegations against the present

petitioners either in the complaint or in the FIR. But

subsequently, upon the investigation, the petitioners-

accused were roped into the present case and charge-sheet

has been filed against them for the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420, 406

read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. It is

further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners

that the proceedings against accused Nos.4 to 6 were

quashed by this Court vide Orders dated 14.08.2023 in

CRL.P.No.5898 of 2023.

05. On perusal of the report, it is evident that the

marriage between accused No.1 and de-facto complainant

took place on 25.11.2020 at M.B.R Gardens Function Hall,

Ponugudu Village, Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet District

as per Hindu Rites and Customs and it was an arranged

marriage. Later, the de-facto complainant joined the

matrimonial home at Gaddipally Village and thereafter,

shifted to Hyderabad and lived happily. Later, disputes

arouse between them. Further, accused No.1 got

employment in United States of America and he left to

U.S.A., and subsequently, de-facto complainant also shifted

to U.S.A., and till then she stayed with her parents. After

joining her husband at U.S.A., due to her strange behavior

and not extending her help in household works, accused

No.1 underwent great mental harassment.

06. Entire allegations in the complaint as well as

the statement of the de-facto complainant under Section

161 of Cr.P.C., reveals that accused Nos.2 to 4 have visited

the house of the de-facto complainant and accused No.1

while they were staying at Hyderabad and on the

instigation of in-laws only, accused No.1 harassed the de-

facto complainant. There are no specific allegations

against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and no further

incriminating material is available to prove the guilt of the

petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 or for continuation of

proceedings against them.

07. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State contended that FIR

cannot be an encyclopedia and during the course of

investigation, the Police have laid charge-sheet against the

petitioners as their involvement is found and it is not a fit

case to quash the proceedings at this juncture.

08. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil

Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, wherein it was held as

follows:

"The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-

intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore,

become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassin's weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."

09. The above Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court,

squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the

present case. It is to be noted that the innocent persons

cannot be suffered on the ground of baseless allegations.

In the present case also, except the baseless allegations

that at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4 only, accused

No.1 harassed the de facto complainant and nothing more

is found even in the statement of de facto complainant

recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and

therefore, it is a fit case to quash proceedings against the

petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3.

10. In so far as petitioner-accused No.1 is