Telangana High Court
Mohammed Waseem Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 9 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6071 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1
in C.C.No.294 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special
Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial under the
Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, Adilabad District,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for
short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the
Police, Women Police Station, Adilabad District stating that
her marriage was performed with the petitioner on
20.12.2013. After the marriage, they lived happily for a
period of one month, and thereafter disputes arose between
them. It is further stated that at the time of marriage, her
parents gave all house hold articles, six tulas of gold and
twenty silver ornaments, motor cycle worth Rs.1,00,000/- to
SKS,J
the parents of the petitioner and spent an amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- for marriage. Later, when respondent No.2
and the petitioner were about to go Uganda for eking out
their livelihood, the petitioner and his parents shortened her
hair and asked her to dress up to thigh level to appear as
sales woman in the automobile shop of her husband at Bale,
Uganda. The petitioner and respondent No.2 stayed at M.
Bale for six (6) months and thereafter, respondent No.2 was
sent to India as she was carrying pregnancy of five (5)
months.
3. It is further stated that during her stay at M. Bale, she
attended the duty as sales woman and at that time, the
petitioner started demanding Rs.10,00,000/- as additional
dowry and forced her to inform the same to her parents for
arranging the said amount. On refusal, the petitioner and
her in laws started harassing her mentally. Later, her father
arranged an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards additional
dowry and the same was collected by the father and brother
of the petitioner. Thereafter, they again demanded the
remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from her parents, or
SKS,J
else they warned her that the petitioner may give Talak to
her.
4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a
case in Crime No.55 of 2015 for the offences punishable
under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP
Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge
sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.294 of 2021
before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Adilabad District.
5. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S.
Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon
respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
there is a delay of 14 months in lodging the complaint. He
further submitted that the allegations mentioned in the
charge sheet and in the complaint are vague and no specific
overt acts were mentioned against the petitioner. He further
submitted that the allegations mentioned in the charge
SKS,J
sheet and in the complaint were taken place at Kampala of
Uganda Nation and no incident was taken in India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
even if the allegations are taken in toto, the Police cannot
prosecute the petitioner without following the procedure
contemplated under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. In the present
case, the charge sheet is filed without following the due
process as contemplated under Section 188 of Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that so far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the
prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and Exs.P1 to P17 were
marked. In defence accused Nos.2 and 3 filed the
documents and the same were marked as Exs.D1 to D5.
The trial Court after considering the evidence on record,
held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused
Nos.2 and 3 and accordingly acquitted them. He further
submitted that the judgment clearly shows that the
harassment was not established against accused Nos.1 to 3.
He further submitted that in view of the acquittal of accused
Nos.2 and 3, continuation of proceedings against accused
No.1 is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the
SKS,J
allegations leveled against the petitioner are considered to
be vague and prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against him.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor submitted that though accused Nos.2 and 3 were
acquitted, the petitioner, who is the main accused in the
said crime, has to face the trial. Therefore, he prayed the
Court to dismiss the petition.
9. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on
record, the main allegation against the petitioner is that
when respondent No.2 and the petitioner are in Uganda, the
petitioner used to harass respondent No.2, mentally and
physically by shortening her hair and by forcing her to wear
short dresses without her consent. The other allegation
against the petitioner is that he demanded additional dowry
from the parents of respondent No.2.
10. A perusal of the record reveals that the trial Court has
conducted the trial against accused Nos.2 and 3 in the same
case, and when the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
SKS,J
accused Nos.2 and 3, the trial Court acquitted them for the
offences alleged against them. Further, it is also observed
that the alleged harassment was not established against
accused Nos.1 to 3.
11. Further, though there are catena of judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, wherein it
is clearly observed that only the offence which is committed
in India by an Indian Citizen can be tried in India and no
sanction of the Central Government for the same is
required, but when the offences are allegedly committed
outside India by a citizen of India, then previous sanction of
the Central Government is required for the trial to
commence. In the present case, except the marriage between
the petitioner and respondent No.2, there are no other
allegations against the petitioner of having committed the
same in India. That apart, the trial Court in its judgment
clearly observed that the allegations are baseless and there
is no proof for the same. Though the trial was conducted for
accused Nos.2 and 3, the evidence on record shows that
witnesses deposed against accused No.1 also. Therefore,
the allegations leveled against the petitioner are considered
SKS,J
to be vague and continuation of proceedings against him is
nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the
proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.294 of 2021 on
the file of the learned special Judicial Magistrate of First
Class for Trial under the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act,
Adilabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________
K. SUJANA
Date: 09.09.2024
SAI
