Bhukya Mangamma vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2382 Tel

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.9259 OF 2021

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/A2 & A3, to quash the proceedings against them in

C.C.No.844/2021 on the file of II Additional First Class

Magistrate at Kothagudem. The offences alleged against them are

under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code and Sections 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3. The

case of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is that she was

married to Accused No.1 on 19.08.2018. At the time of marriage

30 Tulas of gold, an amount of Rs.20 lakhs towards dowry and

an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was given to her sister-in-law. At the

time of marriage, Accused No.1 and 1st petitioner herein (A2)-

mother-in-law were living in Banglore. After the marriage at the

instigation of these petitioners, the Accused No.1-husband

started harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally for

additional dowry. An amount of Rs.10 lakhs was transferred to

the account of Accused No.1. Even then, A1 and these petitioners

continued harassment by beating and abusing the 2nd

respondent. Unable to bear the harassment, the 2nd respondent

went to her parents' house. Thereafter, Accused No.1 promised in

the presence of the elders that he would take care of the 2nd

respondent-wife. When the mother of the 2nd respondent and 2nd

respondent went to Banglore, Accused No.1 and his mother-1st

petitioner herein did not open the door, and the 2nd respondent

was forced stay outside of house for four hours. The 1st petitioner

(A2) and A1 insisted that unless dowry is brought, they will not

allow her into the house. After some time, on several requests

made by the mother of the 2nd respondent, they allowed the 2nd

respondent to enter the house and sent back her mother.

Thereafter, the 2nd respondent was beaten by her husband (A1)

and 1st petitioner (A2). The 2nd respondent called Police in

Banglore and with the help of one of their known persons namely

Mallikarjun, the 2nd respondent went to the Police Station. Both

Accused No.1 (husband) and Accused No.2 (mother-in-law) went

to the Police Station, but they denied any kind of harassment.

Thereafter, the 2nd respondent returned to her parents' house at

Hyderabad and gave birth to a son on 14.10.2019. Though the

same was informed to her husband and A2 -mother-in-law, there

was no response. Accordingly, complaint was filed on

17.11.2020.

4. The Police registered the case and filed charge sheet against

Accused No.1 and these petitioners.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that bald and vague allegations are made against the 1st

petitioner(A2)-mother-in-law who is resident of Warangal and 2nd

petitioner (A3)-sister-in-law who is resident of Kukatpally,

Hyderabad. All the instances alleged have taken place in

Banglore. On the basis of the solitary incident that she was asked

to stay outside the house for four hours, criminal proceedings

cannot be initiated against these petitioners. He further

submitted that the husband (A1) filed divorce petition in

HM.OP.No.94 of 2019. After the said divorce petition was filed, a

complaint was filed as an afterthought, only to force the husband

and these petitioners. The divorce petition was still pending.

Thereafter, due to the constant harassment by the 2nd respondent

and her family members, the 1st petitioner-mother-in-law and

Accused No.1 (husband) filed WP.No.21561 of 2021 and this

Court by order dated 08.09.2021 directed the 2nd respondent and

other not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners in

any manner.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the

Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1456 of

2015 dated 31.08.2023 in Abhishek v. State of Madhya

Pradesh 1, wherein proceedings have been quashed against the

petitioners therein for the offence under Section 498-A of the

Indian Penal code, stating that no case was made out.

7. He also relied on the Judgments of Honourable Supreme

Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of

Bihar 2, wherein 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.

8. He further relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand 3

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083

(2022) 6 SCC 599

(2010) 7 SCC 667

wherein it is 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.

9. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the

2nd respondent would submit that there are serious

allegations levelled against these petitioners. Accused No.1

(husband) had taken an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as additional

dowry. Even at the time of marriage Rs.20 lakhs was taken

as dowry. Both these petitioners are responsible for

harassing the 2nd respondent. At the instance of these

petitioners, Accused No.1 (husband) was harassing the 2nd

respondent. Even at Banglore, the 1st petitioner was present

and she did not allow the 2nd respondent to enter into the

house. According to the complaint, an amount of Rs.10

lakhs was transferred to the account of husband (A1).

10. It is admitted that the 1st petitioner (mother-in-law) was

staying at Warangal and at times also at Banglore along with

A1. When the solitary incident which happened at Banglore,

the 1st petitioner (A2) was in Banglore. The said incident

happened when the 2nd respondent was pregnant. She went

to the premises of Accused No.1 and it is allege that Accused

No.1 and 1st petitioner (A2) did not allow her into the house.

11. In the complaint filed and also in the statement made

by 2nd respondent, it is alleged that A1 and these petitioners

were beating her and also harassing her. The said allegation

is vague and general. No such incidents were narrated

except the incident which happened in Banglore. Even at

Banglore, on that day, A1-husband was present in the house

and it is not specifically stated that 1st petitioner (A2) had

done any act on the said date. Both A1 and A2 were called to

the police station where they pleaded ignorance. It is not in

dispute that A1 had filed divorce petition on the ground of

cruelty by the 2nd respondent. There after the present

complaint was filed. There are specific allegations against A1

(husband). However, there are no specific allegations as far

as these petitioners are concerned.

12. Placing reliance on the Judgments rendered by the

Honourable Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam

and others v. State of Bihar (supra 2) and Preeti Gupta v.

State of Jharkhand (supra 3), the proceedings against

these petitioners are liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioners herein/A2 & A3 in

C.C.No.844/2021 on the file of II Additional First Class

Magistrate at Kothagudem, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 14.09.2023 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9259 OF 2021

Dt. 14.09.2023

tk