Telangana High Court
Bojanapally Bucha Reddy A.2 vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 20 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2560 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.9139 of 2022, on the file of XIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The brief facts of the case are that father of the victim
has given complaint on 02.05.2022, stating that her elder
daughter marriage was performed with accused No.1 and
at the time of marriage he gave 20.00 lakhs cash, 100 tulas
gold and promised to gift a plot of 400 Sq Yds. in KPHP
colony. After marriage, both of them left for USA, as they
are working there. He further stated that accused No.1
subjected his daughter to torture, ill-treated and
abused/harassment and cruelty. He further alleged that
she gave birth to 2 baby girls and accused No.1 did not like
SKS,J
that and used to harass by abusing in filthy language and
also demanded for additional dowry. In March 2012, when
both accused No.1 and the complainant's daughter came to
India, accused No.1 alleged to have abused her daughter
and petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded the 2nd
respondent/complainant to give half share of his property.
He further stated that in December 2014, when accused
No.1 and complainant's daughter visited India, accused
No.1 and petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 have demanded
the 2nd respondent/complainant for transfer of half of his
property. Thereafter, her daughter filed criminal complaint
against accused No.1 on 22.01.2022 and also gave a
complaint in National Commission for Women, NRI on
14.02.2022. Thereafter, 2nd respondent's daughter
received notice on 20.04.2022 from the concerned Court at
Maryland stating that her husband filed a divorce petition
seeking divorce and children custody. All these things
have been done by accused No.1 in a premeditated manner
in order to ruin his daughter's life. The offences demanding
additional dowry and other harassments were committed in
India and continued thereafter. Hence, respondent No.2
SKS,J
filed a complaint and the same is registered as Crime
No.359 of 2022 before the Women Police Station, DD,
Hyderabad and the police after completion of investigation,
filed charge sheet in C.C.No.9139 of 2022 before the XIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing
for G.Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State and Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the allegations made in the charge sheet against the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety and prima facie do not
constitute any offence to make out a case against them and
the prosecution was initiated on the basis of the complaint
given by the respondent No.2, which was malafide and
maliciously intended. He further submitted that the 2nd
respondent/complainant gave a complaint to the Police on
02.05.2022 and 2nd respondent's daughter/wife of accused
SKS,J
No.1 has already gave a complaint against accused No.1 in
USA on 22.01.2022, alleging the same allegations and the
said complaint was thoroughly enquired into by the
jurisdictional Court i.e., District Court of Maryland for
Montgomery, USA and dismissed the same on 10.06.2022.
That apart, the victim also gave a complaint to the National
Commission for Women, NRI cell against accused No.1. He
further submitted that these facts clearly establish that
present complaint is not a bonafide and is intended to
wreak vengeance against accused No.1 and his family
members and the allegations against the petitioners/
accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of accused No.1
are absolutely vague, sweeping, omnibus and bereft of
particulars. He also submitted that accused No.1 has
already filed divorce petition seeking divorce and custody of
both the children in Circuit Court form Montgomery,
Maryland in USA on 20.04.2022 and victim is contesting
the same by filing a counter and the same is pending for
the disposal and as a counter blast to the divorce petition,
the present complaint is filed.
SKS,J
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan
kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and
another 1, wherein it was held that the family members of
the husband should not be implicated in offence under
Section 498-A on the basis of wild, vague and baseless
allegations. He further submitted that the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of
accused No.1 and there are no specific allegations against
them. He further submits that a copy of judgment passed
by the Circuit Court for Montgomery Country, Maryland in
USA and also a copy of Consent Custody and Child
Support Order was filed. He further submitted that the
Court in USA has granted divorce to the accused No.1 and
victim on 03.10.2023 and by this order, the parties
attended alternative dispute resolution and reached full
and final settlement of the remaining issues with their
divorce, but not including the respective custody of the
matrimonial property, support and Child Support Order
memorialized by the parties in the terms sheet and the
(2022) 6 SCC 599
SKS,J
limitations pending stipulations with regard to child
custody. Therefore, the complaint given against the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 is nothing but process of
abuse of law. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the
Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the
petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 would submit that the magnitude of the cruelty and
inhuman behaviour of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and
3 can be assessed by the fact that they suppressed the
health conditions of accused No.1 and got him married
to the 2nd respondent's daughter. Even 7 years prior to
the marriage of the accused No.1, at the age of 23 years,
he was hospitalized with neurological problem,
hypertension, and cardiac problems. He further
submitted that from 2005 onwards accused No.1 was
treated in Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences and
CARE hospital and even though the behaviour of
accused No.1 and the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3
was abnormal and different it was not known to the
SKS,J
victim. Even prior to the marriage, accused No.1 had
serious health problems and they have successfully
hidden the same. The documents filed by the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 itself shows that what
kind of cruelty was shown to the victim. This act of the
accused No.1 and petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 was
ultimate example of cruelty, which not only creates
troubles and traumatic conditions to the victim, but also
endangers the health conditions of the two girls. He
further submitted that the rampant cruelty among the
accused No.1 and petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 was
manifested through the fact that the accused No.1
refused to share his documents with the victim in order
to extend her H4 status in the USA. Accused No.1 with
the support of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 has
hatched a cruel plan to throw the victim out of status
and deport her to India. Being equally qualified, the
victim stood up for her children and obtained a valid
H1B visa to continue to live with her children in USA.
He further submitted that there are serious allegations
against the petitioners and the merits or otherwise of the
SKS,J
same has to be gone into by the trial Court. Hence, he
prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. In view of the rival submissions made by both the
counsel, this Court has perused the material available on
record. As per the averments made in the complaint,
petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 harassed the 2nd
respondent's daughter for want of additional dowry.
Further allegation is that in the year 2012 and 2014, A1
along with A2 and A3 came to the house of respondent
No.2 and demanded share in the property. Further in the
year 2019, when they went to USA harassed victim woman,
where as record shows that couple lived together till 2022.
The main allegations are against husband i.e., A1 only and
these petitioners are not resided with A1 and his wife. It is
pertinent to note that except the above allegation, there are
no specific allegations against them and they are no way
concerned with the matrimonial disputes between accused
No.1 and the 2nd respondent's daughter. Admittedly, the
only allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3
is that they supported accused No.1.
SKS,J
8. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations
made by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others
vs. Bhajanlal 2,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
1992 supp (1) SCC 335
SKS,J
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 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."
9. Further, in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 3,
the Apex Court observed that the family members who are
residing away from accused No.1 cannot be roped into the
case. In view thereof, as the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and
3 are not residing along with the 2nd respondent's
daughter, the allegations made against them are vague.
Therefore, it can be said that category No.1 as extracted
above in the case of Bhajanlal (2 Supra) is relevant to the
present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
(2010) 7 SCC 667
SKS,J
view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would
be served and there are no other specific allegations
against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in
C.C.No.9139 of 2022, on the file of XIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 20.11.2024
Gv
