Kavita Rattan vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 4116 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4116 Tel
Judgement Date : 17 October, 2024

Telangana High Court

Kavita Rattan vs The State Of Telangana on 17 October, 2024

         THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


        CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8602 & 7729 of 2023


COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one

and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by

way of this common order.

2. Criminal Petition No.7729 of 2023 is filed by the

petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 and Criminal Petition No.8602 of

2023 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') in

C.C.No.1550 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Junior

Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at

Athivelli, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

3. The brief facts of the cases are that respondent No.2/de facto

complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners and other

accused stating that her marriage with accused No.1 was

performed on 16.02.2010 and out of their wedlock, they blessed

with a child. After marriage, accused No. 1 misrepresented his job

as Assistant Vice President (AVP) at Genpact with a salary of

Rs.1,00,000/- per month, but actually worked as a junior process

SKS,J Crl.P.No.8602, 7729 of 2023

developer and earning Rs.15,000 per month. Thereafter, the

petitioners and accused No.1 harassed and tortured her for dowry

of Rs.20,00,00/-. For 8 of their 13-year marriage, accused No.1

was jobless, leaving her to bear household and financial

responsibilities. It is further stated that without her consent,

accused No.1 took their minor son to Nagpur, enrolled him in

school, and has denied her access for the past year. Accused No. 1

pressures her to divorce without any reason. Basing on the said

complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.390 of 2023 of

Jeedimetla Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and after

completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide

C.C.No.1550 of 2023, before the learned Additional Junior Civil

Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal At

Athivelli.

4. Heard Sri Apurva M. Gokhale, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent

No.1-State and Sri Giruka Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners were wrongly implicated in the said case and the

SKS,J Crl.P.No.8602, 7729 of 2023

allegations leveled against them, prima facie, do not constitute any

offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that the

petitioners never interfered in the matrimonial disputes between

accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Police filed the charge sheet

without verifying the matter and there are no specific allegations

against the petitioners except stating that they supported accused

No.1. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that the

complaint itself shows that there are allegations against the

petitioners. The petitioners are the parents, sister and brother-in-

law of accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2 and demanded

additional dowry. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the

petitioners require trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the

petition.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the parties and

a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the

petitioners are the parents, sister and brother-in-law of accused

No.1 and the allegations leveled against them are that they

harassed respondent No.2 and demanded dowry. It is specifically

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the

SKS,J Crl.P.No.8602, 7729 of 2023

petitioners are not residing with accused No.1 and respondent No.2

and further contended that except supporting accused No.1, they

never interfered with the matrimonial disputes between them.

8. At this stage, it is imperative to note the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana

and another 1, wherein in paragraph No.35, it is 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 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

Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024

SKS,J Crl.P.No.8602, 7729 of 2023

above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines."

9. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta

(supra), the averments in the complaint has to disclose the alleged

ingredients of the offences. In the present case, except omnibus

allegations, there are no other specific allegations against the

petitioners, who are the parents, sister, and brother-in-law of

accused No.1. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta

vs. State of Jharkhand 2, has observed that the family members,

who are residing away from accused No.1, cannot be roped into the

case. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners

are that they instigated accused No.1 to demand additional dowry

and also harassed her physically and mentally. Except these bald

allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners.