Telangana High Court

Gurram Rajamouli vs The State Of Telangana on 23 September, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


           CRIMINAL PETITION No.4194 of 2023


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 petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in

C.C.No.382 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act') and Section

156 (3) of Cr.P.C.s

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de

facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police against

the petitioners and other accused stating that her marriage

was performed with accused No.1 on 18.12.2014. At the time

of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 gave

Rs.5,00,000/-, 20 thulas of gold, 25 thulas of silver and other

house hold articles worth Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry. After

marriage, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 lead their

SKS,J

marital life happy for two months, later, the disputes arose

between them and accused No.1 started harassing respondent

No.2 physically and mentally for want of additional dowry of

Rs.30,00,000/-. It is further stated that accused No.1

tortured her and beat her and did not provide food to her, the

same was informed to her parents and panchayat was held

before the elders. The elders advised accused No.1 to change

his attitude towards respondent No.2, but accused No.1 did

not change his attitude and again started harassing her.

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of accused No.1 and

Petitioner No.3 is the sister of accused No.1 and petitioner

No.4 is the brother-in-law of accused No.1. It is further stated

that the petitioners with the support of accused No.1 abused

her to commit suicide or otherwise they would kill her for

additional dowry. Therefore, the father of respondent No.2

gave Rs.10,00,000/- on several occasions. Thereafter,

accused No.1 tortured her for remaining Rs.20,00,000/- as

additional dowry otherwise, he would give divorce to her and

marry another lady.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a

case in Crime No.96 of 2019 for the offences punishable under

SKS,J

Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC, Section 4 of the DP Act

and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., and after completion of

investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.382 of

2022, before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Sircilla.

4. Heard Sri V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri T. Rahul, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent

No.1-State and Sri Akkam Eshwar, 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

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

SKS,J

prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

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

learned counsel 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 additional dowry. It is specifically contended by

the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 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.

Further, it is noted that at the time of filing of charge sheet,

the Investigating Officer deleted the names of the petitioners

SKS,J

stating that there is no evidence and no specific allegations

against the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed

protest petition against the petitioners and the same was

allowed without giving any reasons and without giving any

notice to the petitioners.

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

Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024

SKS,J

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."

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. Further, the 161