Telangana High Court

Mr. Gorige Mahesh vs Mrs. Navya Valluri on 6 November, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.1154 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 to 6 seeking to quash the

proceedings against them in CC.No.72 of 2023 on the file of

the VI Additional Metroplitan Magistrate, Medchal

Malkajgiri, Uppal, at Hastinapuram, for the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').

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

No.1/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the

petitioners stating that her marriage was solemnized with

petitioner NO.1 on 30.08.2018 and that the parents of

respondent No.2 gave cash of Rs.20,00,000/-, 37 tulas of

gold and other articles towards dowry as per the demand of

petitioners. After their marriage, they lived in peace for

some time and thereafter, the petitioner No.1 began to

SKS,J

harass the respondent No.1 mentally and physically for

want of additional dowry, at the instigation of petitioner

NOs.2 to 6. It was stated that though respondent No.1 and

petitioner No.1 attended counseling time and again, there

was no change in the behavior of petitioners. On receipt of

the said complaint, the Police registered case against the

petitioners and on completion of due investigation, a charge

sheet was filed against the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby,

this criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for

petitioners, Sri Dharmesh DK.Jaiswal, learned counsel for

respondent No.1, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent NO.2 - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners were wrongly implicated in the said case and

that the allegations leveled against them, prima facie, do not

constitute any offence as alleged by respondent No.1. He

contended that except framing baseless and vague

allegations, neither the averments made in complaint, nor

SKS,J

the averments made in charge sheet would show specific set

of allegations against the petitioners. He lamented that

without any basis the respondent NO.1 has stated in her

complaint averments that she was being harassed by the

petitioners on the grounds that she got less dowry, demand

of additional dowry, forceful admission for a beauty parlor

course, taunting that petitioner No.1 would find more

beautiful girl than her and necking her out of the house. He

reiterated that the said allegations were absolutely false and

that the complaint was lodged against the petitioners to

tarnish their image in the society. He asserted that the

complaint was lodged with long delay mentioning old dates

of alleged incidents, such as, 20.10.2019, 18.12.2020,

21.11.2021, 03.02.2022, 12.03.2022 and 01.04.2022.

Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition,

quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

respondent NO.1, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

respectively, opposed the submissions made by learned

counsel for petitioner and submitted that the complaint

SKS,J

itself would show that there are set of serious allegations

against the petitioners. Further, learned counsel for

respondent No.1 categorically submitted that the petitioner

No.1 is husband of respondent NO.1, petitioner No.2 is his

mother and other petitioners are his relatives, and that

petitioner No.1 had mercilessly harassed respondent No.1,

and demanded additional dowry coming under the

instigation of other petitioners. Therefore, while advocating

that the allegations leveled against the petitioners require

trial, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

going through the material placed on record, it is noted that

admittedly there are matrimonial disputes between the

petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 due to which they

entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (for short

'MOU') which requires petitioner No.1 to return all the

dowry taken at the time marriage and other articles as well,

along with Rs.25 lakhs towards permanent alimony,

whereas, it is the specific stand of respondent No.1 that

petitioner No.1 had failed to pay the said amount and the

SKS,J

allegations leveled against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 who are

mother and other relatives of petitioner No.1 are with regard

to harassment for want of additional dowry.

7. On meticulously perusing the material placed on

record, it is seen that except alleging that at the instigation

of petitioner Nos.2 to 6, petitioner NO.1 harassed the

respondent No.1 mentally and physically, there are no other

allegations against them. At this stage, it is pertinent to

note that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another 1, in

paragraph No.35, it was 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 when an accused comes

before the High Court, invoking either the

inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.c or

Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024

SKS,J

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."