Telangana High Court

Mr. Mohammed Feroz Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 10 July, 2024

         THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
             CRIMINAL PETITION No.12857 OF 2023



ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

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

the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in

C.C.No.1049 of 2023 pending on the file of the XIII Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1967 (for short

'DP Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent

No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against her

husband/petitioner No.1/accused No.1, father in law/petitioner

No.2/accused No.2 and sister in law/petitioner No.3/accused

No.3, stating that during her marriage with petitioner No.1 her

parents gave 20 tulas of gold towards dowry and fulfilled all the

other formalities, as per the demands of her in-laws. She alleged

that after marriage the petitioners demanded Rs.10,00,000/- to

SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023

enable her husband to travel to Canada and on fulfilling the

same, they have subsequently demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as well.

It is alleged that petitioner No.3 along with one Yousuf, planned

to kill respondent No.2 and later on the petitioner Nos.2 and 3

harassed and forced her to give divorce to petitioner No.1.

3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the

matter and on completion of due investigation a charge sheet

was filed against the petitioners, whereunder, they were arrayed

as accused Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition

is filed.

4. Heard Sri Khaja Aijazuddin, learned counsel for

petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent

No.1 - State. No representation for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the

allegations leveled against the petitioners are false, vague and

baseless. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra 1

and contended that as per the said judgment if the allegations

(2019) 14 SCC 350

SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023

set out in the complaint, along with the statement recorded

under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., does not constitute offence, the

proceedings against the accused persons are liable to be

quashed. He lamented that the averments placed on record

would prima facie not disclose any offence, as alleged against

the petitioners. He asserted that except mere allegations, the

respondent No.2 has filed no document in support of her

contention of demand of additional dowry and the fulfillment of

the same and alleged that the respondent No.2 has filed

complaint against the petitioners only with an intention to

defame them.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta Vs.

State of Jharkhand 2 and averred that it is categorically held in

the said judgment that in matrimonial disputes, the

wife/complainant cannot rope the entire family members of the

husband in the criminal cases by making omnibus allegations

and there must be specific set of allegations against the family

members as well. In addition, he also relied on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of

(2010) 7 SCC 667

SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023

Uttar Pradesh 3 and submitted that the Police failed to follow

the law laid down by the above cited judgment and failed to

appreciate the quintessential aspect that the alleged demands

made by petitioners and the alleged harassment faced by

respondent No.2 are without any iota of evidence. Therefore,

prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by

learned counsel for petitioners and contended that as per the

complaint averments the petitioner No.1 demanded additional

dowry and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have time and again

harassed the respondent No.2 and pressurized her to give

divorce to petitioner No.1. Further, the petitioner No.2 along

with one Yousuf has threatened to kill respondent No.2.

Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going

through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the

complaint averments, it is the specific contention of respondent

No.2 that though her parents gave 20 tulas of gold towards

(2012) 10 SCC 741

SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023

dowry and fulfilled all the demands made by petitioners during

her marriage, and also gave Rs.10,00,000/- to enable the

petitioner No.1 to travel to Canada, the petitioners demanded

additional dowry and also harassed her mentally and physically.

9. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that to quash the

proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see

whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that

it constitute the offence against the accused persons, as alleged

by the Police. That being so, it is imperative to note the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 4, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is

held as follows:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function

as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court

has, in several judgments, held that the

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used

sparingly, carefully and with caution. The

High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

should normally refrain from giving a prima

facie decision in a case where the entire facts

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.12857 OF 2023

are incomplete and hazy, more so when the

evidence has not been collected and produced

before the Court and the issues involved,

whether factual or legal, are of wide

magnitude and cannot be seen in their true

perspective without sufficient material."