Telangana High Court

Survepalli Aruna Devi vs The State Of Telangana on 19 June, 2024

            THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA



            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10729 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.2 and 3 in

C.C.No.2338 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code

(for short the 'IPC') and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

(for short 'D.P.Act').

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

complainant lodged a complaint on 09.03.2023 before the

Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Saroor Nagar,

Ranga Reddy District against accused Nos.1 to 5 (A.1 to A.5).

A.1 is the husband of 2nd respondent, A.2 and A.3 are in-laws,

A.4 and A.5 are the brother and sister-in-law of A.1. The

petitioners herein are A.2 and A.3 and they are residing in

Nellore Town, A.4 and A.5 are residing in U.S.A., since 2015.

They have attended the marriage of A.1, stayed for 15 days and

returned to U.S.A. Again they have visited India in the month of

September, 2018, seen the child of A.1 and returned to U.S.A.,

on 06.10.2018. Thereafter, they never came to India. The 2nd

respondent in her complaint states that her father is a Gazetted

Officer, that her marriage was performed with A.1 on

11.11.2016, and at the time of marriage her father gave dowry

of Rs.10 Lakhs cash, Rs.10 Lakhs gold and spent Rs.5 Lakhs

towards marriage expenditure. After one month of the marriage

A.1 used to behave very strangely, very cruelly, he used to

manhandle the 2nd respondent not only in her house but also at

her parents house, that A.1 got dual personality and she could

not bear his harassment. That the inlaws, brother-in-law and

co-sister of 2nd respondent used to involve in their family issues

intentionally and created unnecessary quarrels between the 2nd

respondent and A.1; that the brother-in-law and co-sister used

to insult her stating that they don't have any properties; that

her inlaws never talked to her properly; that A.1 and inlaws of

2nd respondent used to insult her stating that she is fatty,

abused her and also did not provide proper food to her and her

son. Basing on the said complaint the police registered case

against A.1 to A.5 and after investigation deleted the names of

A.4 and A.5 stating that they are residing in U.S.A. and

complainant never told about the involvement of A.4 and A.5 in

her matrimonial life.

3. Heard Sri Nageswar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

and Sri P.V.Krishnamachary, learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is

that A.1 filed O.P., for restitution of conjugal rights vide

F.C.O.P.No.556 of 2023, that he never demanded any dowry and

he never harassed the 2nd respondent, in fact, he wanted to take

back the 2nd respondent. He also contended that the petitioners

herein never resided with A.1 and 2nd respondent, they are

residents of Nellore, that A.1 and 2nd respondent are residents of

Hyderabad. There are no such instances to demand additional

dowry and further submitted that the independent witnesses

Lws.6 and 7 stated that the parents of A.1, brother and sister-

in-law of A.1 never visited the house of 2nd respondent and A.1.

Except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations

against the petitioners. As such, prayed the Court to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners herein.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent

would submit that though the petitioners herein are residing

separately, they used to instigate A.1 to harass the 2nd

respondent, they used to visit the house of A.1 and 2nd

respondent and there are specific allegations against these

petitioners, that they demanded additional dowry and also

harassed the 2nd respondent mentally and physically, which

requires trial. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss this

criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material

placed on record to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C, petitioners have to prove that there is no incriminating

material in the complaint or in the statement of witnesses

against them. Admittedly, the offences alleged against the

petitioners are under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3

and 4 of D.P.Act. As seen from the record and statement of

witnesses, the only allegation against the petitioners is that at

their instigation, A.1 used to harass the 2nd respondent.

According to the 2nd respondent A.1 did not provide proper food

to her and her son and the investigation reveals that A.2 and

A.3 also supported A.1 by advising the 2nd respondent to adjust

with him. That is the only allegation against these petitioners.

The petitioners herein are not residing with A.1 and 2nd

respondent and they are residents of Nellore. According to

Lws.6 and 7, the in-laws of 2nd respondent never visited the

house of A.1 and 2nd respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta Vs State of

Haryana and another 1, wherein in para 31 it was observed as

under :

"31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr. P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she

1 2024 SCC online SC 759

would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be looked into or considered then why the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure report against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so, because allegations have been levelled not only against the Appellant herein but even against his parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute."

8. Further, in Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs State of

Uttar Pradesh 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :

"20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance

2 (2012) 10 SCC 741

against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: (SCC p. 698, para 12)

"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their 'cases' in different courts."

The view taken by the Judges in that matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

9. In the present case, except that the petitioners have

instigated A.1 to harass the 2nd respondent, there are no specific

allegations against them. As the petitioners are residents of

Nellore and they never resided with A.1 and 2nd respondent, it

can be said that vague and baseless allegations are leveled

against these petitioners and it is a fit case to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in

C.C.No.2338 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar are hereby