Telangana High Court
Gandu Padma vs The State Of Telangana on 10 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2618 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 in
C.C.No.757 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, registered for
the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de
facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police,
Jammikunta Police Station, Karimnagar District stating that
her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on
03.06.2021. At the time of marriage, family members of
accused No.1 demanded Rs.10 lakhs net cash, 26 thulas of
gold and other house hold articles. After second day of
marriage, accused No.1 did not move closely with respondent
No.2 and behaved rudely. Later, accused No.1 started
suspecting her, abusing her in filthy language and beating
SKS,J
her. Later, the same was informed by respondent No.2 to her
mother-in-law and father-in-law, but they supported accused
No.1 and told that he is Sub-Inspector of Police and she
should tolerate the torture and also abused her. Sister-in-law
of respondent No.2 and her husband also supported accused
No.1 and harassed her physically and mentally. Brother of
accused No.1 was also supported her in-laws and harassed
her. Thereafter, the petitioners demanded to respondent No.2
to ask her parents to register a plot in the name of accused
No.1.
3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a
case in Crime No.198 of 2022 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the Act and after completion of investigation, they
filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.757 of 2022 on the file of the
learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Huzurabad.
4. Heard Sri Allam Nagaraju, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
SKS,J
No.1- State. Though notice was served upon respondent
No.2, none appeared on her behalf.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners were wrongly implicated in the said case and the
allegations leveled against them, prima facie, do not constitute
any offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted
that respondent No.2 and other witnesses have given similar
statements without attributing to any specific role of the
petitioners and it is pertinent to note that without attributing
any specific role against the petitioners, the alleged offences
are not maintainable in the eye of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that the petitioners never interfered in the matrimonial
disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Police
filed the charge sheet without verifying the matter and there
are no specific allegations against the petitioners except
stating that they supported accused No.1.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that accused No.1 filed a petition, vide H.M.O.P.No.118 of
2022, under Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking
restitution of conjugal rights before the Additional Senior Civil
SKS,J
Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial and the
same was allowed but respondent No.2 did not join the
conjugal life with accused No.1. Therefore, he prayed the
Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
8. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharathi 1, wherein
it is held as under:
"in order to lodge a proper complaint mere
mentioned of the section and language of the
sections is not the be all and end all of the
matter. What is required to be brought to the
notice of the Court is the particulars of the
offence committed by each and every accused
in commit in the crime."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mirza Iqbal @
Golu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 , wherein it is held as
under:
"However, we deem it appropriate to add by
way of caution that we may not be
misunderstood so as to infer that even if there
(2009) 10 SCC 184
SKS,J
are allegations of overt act indicating the
complicity of the members of the family
nemed in the FIR in a given case, cognizance
would be unjustified but what we wish to
emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR
as it stands does not disclose specific
allegation against the accused more so
against the co-accused specifically in matter
arising out of the matrimonial bickering it
would be clear abuse of legal and judicial
process to mechanically send the named
accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless
of course the FIR discloses specific allegations
which would persuade the Court to take
cognizance of the offence alleged against the
relatives of the main accused who are prima
facie not found to have indulged in physical
and mental torture of the complainant wife."
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs.
State of Haryana and another 3 , wherein in paragraph
No.35, it is held as under:
"35. In one of the recent pronouncements
of this Court in Mahmood Ali and Ors vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B.
Pardiwala, j.), the legal principle applicable
apropos Section 482 of the Cr.P.C was
examined. Therein, it was observed that
Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024
SKS,J
when an accused comes before the High
Court, invoking either the inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.P.c or the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed, essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in
such circumstances, the High Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. It was further observed that it
will not be enough for the Court to look into
the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of
the case over and above the averments and, if
need be, with due care and circumspection, to
try and read between the lines."
11. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that the complaint itself shows that there are
allegations against the petitioners. All the family members of
accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2 and also demanded
additional dowry. Therefore, the allegations leveled against
the petitioners require trial and prayed the Court to dismiss
the petition.
SKS,J
12. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on
record, it appears that the allegations leveled against the
petitioners are that they harassed respondent No.2 by
supporting accused No.1, in demanding additional dowry and
to register the property in the name accused No.1. When
accused No.1 behaved rudely with respondent No.2, the
parents of accused No.1 instead of supporting respondent
No.2, supported accused No.1. Further, accused No.1 refused
to allow respondent No.2 to enter into the house without
registering the property on his name. Later, accused No.1
filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, in which
neither respondent No.2 contest the case before its disposal
not even after passing of the decree to join with accused No.1
as per the information submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
13. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin
Gupta (supra), the averments in the complaint has to disclose
the alleged ingredients of the offences. In the present case,
except omnibus allegations, there are no other specific
allegations against the petitioners, who are the family
SKS,J
members of accused No.1. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 4, has observed that
the family members, who are residing away from accused
No.1, cannot be roped into the case. In view thereof, as the
petitioners are not residing along with accused No.1, the
allegations against them are considered to be vague.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the
trial is conducted, no purpose would be served and that since
there are no other specific allegations against the petitioners,
the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 in
C.C.No.757 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, are hereby
quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 10.07.2024
SAI
(2010) 7 SCC 667
