Telangana High Court
Sri.Eppakayala Shiva Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 7 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10697 OF 2023
ORDER :
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 and 2 to quash the proceedings against
them in C.C.No.1542 of 2023 pending on the file of I-Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate at Athvelly, Medchal, Cyberabad. The
offences alleged against them are under Sections 498-A, 323 of
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P.Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.08.2023 at 14.00
hours the defacto complainant/2nd respondent gave complaint to
the police stating that the marriage between 1st petitioner and
herself is a love marriage and at the time of marriage her parents
have not given any dowry. As such, she gave Rs.1.2 Lakhs from
her PF amount. It is further stated that after six months of their
marriage, the mother of 1st petitioner started instigating him about
the dowry and harassed her mentally and physically. On
18.07.2023 at about 18.00 hours the mother of 1st petitioner
necked her out from the house for bringing additional dowry,
otherwise she would perform another marriage to the 1st
petitioner, by giving divorce to the 2nd respondent. The 1st
petitioner also beat her by bolting the door from inside and caused
injury on her neck, due to which the 2nd respondent was taken to
Malla Reddy Hospital, for treatment by her parents and since then,
she is staying with her parents. Hence, the complaint.
3. Basing on the above complaint, the police registered a case
in Cr.No.602 of 2024 under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 and
4 of D.P.Act and after completing the investigation, the police filed
charge sheet.
4. Heard Sri S.Sai Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the
respondent-State.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that
the 2nd respondent has no interest in the matrimonial society with
the 1st petitioner and she used to send whats ap messages to get
divorce. The 1st petitioner has taken loan of Rs.1.25 lakhs from L
& T Finance and from other financial institutions to take care of
the 2nd respondent for the day-to-day necessities and till today he
is paying EMI for the above loans. The second petitioner is the
mother of 1st petitioner and she does not live with the 2nd
respondent and 1st petitioner at Perzadiguda and under the
pressure of parents of the 2nd respondent, the police have
registered a case against the petitioners in Jeedimetla Police
station. Learned counsel further contended that the 2nd
respondent along with 100 members have come to the house of
the 1st petitioner and threatened him to give divorce, as such, the
1st petitioner gave complaint in Medipally Police station. The
allegations against the petitioners are vague. As the marriage
itself is a love marriage, there is no question of demanding dowry
and further stated that the 2nd respondent herself is not interested
in leading the matrimonial life. Further, 2nd petitioner is living
separately from 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent, therefore, there
is no role of 2nd petitioner in this case. As such, prayed the Court
to quash the proceedings against these petitioners.
6. Though, notice is served on the 2nd respondent, none
appeared on her behalf. On the other hand, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations against the
petitioners clearly prove that there is harassment and demand for
dowry. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and the
material placed on record, it is noted that the allegations as seen
from the charge sheet are that the petitioners harassed the 2nd
respondent for additional dowry, as she did not bring any dowry
and as the 2nd respondent has not conceived, the 2nd petitioner
used to harass her mentally and physically for not having kids.
According to the charge sheet, the 2nd petitioner forced the 2nd
respondent to leave the house, but according to the petitioners,
the 2nd petitioner never lived with the 1st petitioner and 2nd
respondent. The prosecution case is that 2nd petitioner also lived
with 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent, and necked out her from
the house. Petitioners also filed whats ap chating showing the 2nd
respondent forced for divorce and the 1st petitioner tried to
convince her. The allegation that 2nd respondent is not interested
in 1st petitioner to lead conjugal life, requires trial. Therefore, at
this stage, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners is not
maintainable.
8. However, 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 offences as
alleged by the Police.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Surendra Kori 1, 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 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."
10. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra), this Court does not find any merit in this criminal petition
to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1542 of 2023 pending on the
file of I-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Athvelly, Medchal,
Cyberabad against the petitioners and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :07.06.2024
Rds
