Telangana High Court

V V Krishna Kumar vs State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


           CRIMINAL PETITION No.8476 of 2024


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 petitioner/accused in

C.C.No.5605 of 2021 on the file of XI Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. The

offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498-

A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and under Section 3

of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P.Act').

2. The facts of the case are that on 05.09.2021 at 19.30

hours, the complainant-2nd respondent lodged a complaint

before the police stating that her marriage was performed with

the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs at Khammam

and they were blessed with a son. It is stated that petitioner

tortured her, treated her as a servant and did not show love

and affection towards her or her son and that he also

maintained illegal affair with another women, when the same

was informed to her parents, they advised him to change his

attitude, but in vain and continued the same harassment

towards her. Basing on the said complaint, police registered a

case in Cr.No.732 of 2021 for the offences under Sections

498-A of I.P.C, and under section 3 of the D.P.Act and after

completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet.

3. Heard Sri K.Raghunatha Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is

that there are no ingredients to constitute the offence under

Section 498-A of I.P.C, since the 2nd respondent did not

complain anything about bodily injury, cruelty, demand of

dowry and committing suicide which are the main ingredients

to constitute the crime as alleged. The allegations in the

complaint are vague and general, that the investigation was

completed in only two days i.e., FIR was registered on

05.09.2021 and charge sheet was filed on 07.09.2021. He

further submitted that Section 41-A Cr.P.C, notice was served

to the petitioner on 19.09.2021, which shows that it is a

frivolous complaint. Learned counsel further contended that

there is no date, time and place of offence and the witnesses

also did not confirm the date, time and place of offence. The

investigating officer did not insist for evidence on such

important aspects to prove the allegations and the statements

of witnesses are also recorded mechanically. There is no

medical report of the 2nd respondent to prove that there are

bodily injuries on her body to prove cruelty. He further stated

that to prove mental harassment nothing is placed on record,

except the statement of witnesses that petitioner is having

illicit relationship. All the allegations made are only cooked-

up story without proper evidence. Even coming to the

allegation under Section 3 of D.P.Act, none of the witnesses

stated that there is demand for dowry after marriage till the

date of complaint and that the marriage expenses were borne

by the father of petitioner and marriage was performed at the

house of petitioner. Lws.2 and 3 never lived with the

petitioner and 2nd respondent and all the allegations made by

them are only hear say.

5. Learned counsel further contended that petitioner is a

LIC agent and always moves on to different places and gets

meager income as commission. Several mediations were held

by the elders, neither the 2nd respondent mentioned the

details of mediators nor the investigating officer examined

them. The present complaint is an outcome of 2nd

respondent's suspicious nature, revenge and vendetta. As

such, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner.

6. Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, none

appeared on her behalf.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner stating that there are clear

allegations against the petitioner, which amounts to cruelty.

As such, prayed the Court to dismiss this petition.

8. Having regard to the submissions made and the

material placed on record, the first contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner is that there are no allegations

against the petitioner to constitute the offence under Section

498-A of I.P.C, either physical or mental cruelty as the 2nd

respondent herself stated that during the last ten years, they

are living separately.

9. In this regard, Learned counsel for the petitioner relied

on the judgment in K.V.Prakash Babu Vs State of

Karnataka 1 , wherein in paras 14 and 15, it was held as

under:

"14. Slightly recently in Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat [Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 11 SCC 753 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 545] , the Court perusing the material on record opined that even if the illicit relationship is proven, unless some other acceptable evidence is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental cruelty the Explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC which includes cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted. The relevant passage from the said authority is reproduced below : (SCC pp. 759-60, para 21)

"21. ...True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498-A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal [Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with Appellant 4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted."

15. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and

1 (2017) 11 Supreme Court Cases 176

definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one's endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalise but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Extra-marital relationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit of Section 498-A IPC. It would be an illegal or immoral act, but other ingredients are to be brought home so that it would constitute a criminal offence. There is no denial of the fact that the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC."

10. Going through the contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner, to constitute the offence under Section 498-A of

I.P.C, it need not be a physical cruelty. The averments show

that petitioner herein is having illicit relationship with another

woman and neglected the 2nd respondent which also amounts

to mental cruelty. Further, in the above judgment the Apex

Court observed that mere illicit relationship does not amount

to cruelty whereas if there are other ingredients to show that

such mental cruelty drives woman to commit suicide and also

observed that it varies from case to case basing on the facts.

While dealing with the petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,

this Court cannot go into the factual aspects, it is for the trail

Court to deal with factual aspects. Therefore, at this stage, it

cannot be said that there are no averments to constitute the

offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

11. The other contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that none of the witnesses stated about demand

of additional dowry by the petitioner, therefore, Section 3 of

the D.P.Act, does not attracts.

12. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Surendra Kori 2, observed as under:

"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."

13. Coming to the case on hand, the contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner is that in the complaint of 2nd

respondent there are no averments to show that accused

demanded additional dowry or they gave any dowry but in the

statements of Lws.1 and 2 it is stated that at the time of

2 (2012) 10 SCC 155

marriage, Rs.2 lakhs cash, 12 tulas of gold was given to the

petitioner and huge money was spent towards marriage

expenses. However, it is not the stage to decide whether the

said dowry was given to the petitioner or not, which requires

evidence, whether petitioner is having illicit relationship with

other woman or not has to be proved in a full-fledged trial.