Telangana High Court

Manda Shanmukh Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 5 November, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
         CRIMINAL PETITION No.9463 OF 2023
ORDER:

This Criminal Petitions is filed under Section 482 of the

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

the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in

C.C.No.5070 of 2022, on the file of the XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Sections 4, 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The brief facts of the case are that accused No.1 married

respondent No.2 on 21.04.2016 and at the time of marriage

parents of respondent No.2 given Rs.1,50,00,000/-, 156 thulas

of gold as dowry. Thereafter, respondent No.2 joined conjugal

life with accused No.1 at Washington DC. Later, accused No.1

along with the other accused used to harass her physically,

mentally and also threatened her with dire consequences for

want of additional dowry. Hence, respondent No.2 filed a

complaint in Crime No.730 of 2021 before the WPS CCS

DDPoliceand after completion of investigation, a charge sheet

was filed vide C.C.No.5070of 2022on the file of XIII Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

SKS,J

3. Heard Sri T.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State as well as Sri

Sriram Polali, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the

record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioner is the elder brother of accused No.1 and is separately

residing at Austria with his family since 2007. He further

submitted that the petitioner comes to Indian only at the time of

family functions. He also submitted that respondent No.2 filed

complaint against the petitioner with false allegations and that

the petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offences.

In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex

Court in Deepak Goba and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh

and another 1; Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra

Pradesh 2; Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar v. The State of

Andhra Pradesh 3; Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 4;

Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of

Bihar and others 5; K.Subba Rao v. The State of

(2023) 3 SCC 423

(2011) 9 SCC 527

2021 SCC online SC 3392

Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2015

2022 SCC OnLine SC 162

SKS,J

Telangana 6'; Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar

Pradesh 7 and Preethi Gupta and another v. State of

Jharkhand and another 8 and prayed the Court to allow the

Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the

petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2

opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner stating that the petitioner is responsible for arising

the disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. He

further submitted that accused No.1 used to send recordings of

the conversion between him and respondent No.2 to the

petitioner and upon his instigation, accused No.1 used to

harass respondent No.2 mentally and physically. Hence, he

prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties,

this Court has perused the material available on record. As per

the averments of the complaint, the petitioner/accused No.3

used to instigate accused No.1 to harass respondent No.2

mentally and physically. Whereas the record shows that the

petitioner herein is residing in Austria from 2007, marriage of

AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4009

(2012) 10 SCC 741

(2010) 7 SCC 667

SKS,J

accused No.1 and LW.6 was performed in the year 2016.

Except attending the marriage, the petitioner herein never

stayed with accused No.1 and his wife. The main allegation

against the petitioner is that he instigated accused No.1 to

harass his wife and accused No.1 used to send recordings to the

petitioner. Later, wife of accused No.1 improvised the allegation

against petitioner stating that petitioner provided equipment to

record incidents between herself and her husband in divorce

petition. There is no base for the said allegation and the said

allegation neither averred in the complaint nor in the

statements of LW.1 or LW.6. It is noteworthy that even

according to the 161 statements of witnesses, there is no cogent

evidence to prove that the petitioner provided equipment to hear

the private conversation of accused No.1 and respondent No.2.

Pertinently, except the bald allegations, there are no specific

allegations against the petitioner/accused No.3 to demonstrate

that he interfered with the matrimonial disputes between

accused No.1 and his wife. Further, the statement of respondent

No.2 recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., shows

that the petitioner instigated accused No.1 to harass her. Except

the above said allegation, there are no specific allegations

SKS,J

against the petitioner to constitute offence under Sections 498-

A, 406 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 of the DP Act.

7. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made

by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs.

Bhajanlal 9, whereunder the following categories were

illustrated, wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226

of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court to

prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure

the ends of justice. The said categories are extracted as under:

"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on

1992 supp (1) SCC 335

SKS,J

the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

8. Further, in Preeti Gupta (Supra 8), the Apex Court

observed that the family members who are residing away from

accused No.1 cannot be roped into the case. Time and again the

Apex Court categorically observed that tendency has been

developed for roping in all the relatives of husband in dowry

harassment made in order to browbeat and pressurize the

immediate family of the husband. In the present case, initially

complaint filed against astrologer also stating that he is

instrumental for disputes between the parties, later while filing

charge sheet his name was deleted. Therefore, upon

consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence

of any specific allegations, it is unjust if the petitioner forced to