Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3920 OF 2021
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section – 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings against
the petitioner in C.C. No.187 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner herein is accused No.2 in the said C.C. The
offences alleged against her are under Section – 498A of IPC and
Sections – 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Heard Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 – State, and Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
4. CASE OF PROSECUTION:
As per the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner
herein are as follows:
i) the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was
performed on 06.02.2011;
ii) at the time of marriage, on the demand of petitioner and
accused No.1, the parents of respondent No.2 gave cash
of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards dowry, 50 tulas of gold; and
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
2Rs.1.00 lakh for purchase of Hunk Motorcycle; and also
10 tulas of gold towards Adapaduchu Katnam;
iii) the parents of respondent No.2 performed their marriage
by spending Rs.20.00 lakhs;
iv) respondent No.2 has joined the company of accused
No.1, where the petitioner herein also resides along with
them at East Pragathi Nagar, Moulali, Hyderabad, and
lived there happily for a few days;
v) later, accused No.1 used to come to the house in drunken
condition and harassing respondent No.2, both mentally
and physically by abusing her;
vi) they have blessed with a female baby;
vii) thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them as
accused Nos.1 and 2 started demanding to get Rs.1.00
lakh towards additional dowry, otherwise leave the
house;
viii) after her marriage, her father used to give Rs.5000/- per
month to her and the same would be taken by accused
No.1;
ix) while she was doing job, accused No.1 suspected her
character, she left the job;
x) after that, accused Nos.1 and 2 started harassing
respondent No.2 for additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs;
xi) accused No.1 used to say with respondent No.2 that he
has cancelled three engagements on the pretext that he
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
3
would get more dowry and started harassing her
demanding additional dowry;
xii) the petitioner herein used to encourage accused No.1 to
obtain divorce from respondent No.2, so that he would
get dowry;
5. With the above allegations, respondent No.2 has lodged a
complaint with Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad, who in turn
registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2017 for the aforesaid offences
against accused No.1 and the petitioner herein.
6. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge
sheet against the petitioner herein and accused No.1 for the aforesaid
offences.
7. CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:
i) Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that respondent No.2 is suffering with ‘epilepsy’ and the said
fact was suppressed by her parents at the time of marriage.
ii) Accused No.1 came to know about the same when
respondent No.2 became unconscious thrice. Therefore, accused No.1
has filed a divorce petition vide O.P. No.1694 of 2016 which was
dismissed for default by striking out the defence of accused No.1.
iii) There are contradictions in the statements of witnesses and
also improvements. There are no allegations, much less specific
allegations against the petitioner – accused No.2. In fact, respondent
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
4
No.2 has beat the petitioner herein and accused No.1, who in turn
received bleeding injuries. In proof of the same, he has filed
photographs.
iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal1 and Rashmi Chopra v. State of U.P.2.
v) With the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner
herein.
8. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2:
i) Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 would submit that the present Calendar Case is of the year 2017,
whereas the petitioner herein has filed the present petition in the year
2021. There are specific allegations against the petitioner herein also.
ii) He would further submit that the police have filed charge
sheet on consideration of statements of witnesses and also the
evidence collected. In fact, there are contradictions in the versions of
petitioner herein in the criminal petition itself. He has referred to
paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the criminal petition. There are triable
issues. The petitioner herein instead of facing trial, proving her
1
. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
2
. (2019) 15 SCC 357
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
5
innocence, filed the present petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.
No.187 of 2017 after elapse of four years.
iii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 sought to dismiss the present petition.
9. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
i) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there
are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Both the
petitioner and accused No.1 used to harass respondent No.2, both
mentally and physically. There are triable issues. The petitioner has
to face trial and prove her innocence. The defence taken by the
petitioner may not be considered in the present petition filed under
Section – 482 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has to take such defence
during trial before the trial Court.
ii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition.
10. FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) A perusal of the material would reveal that the marriage of
accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was performed on 06.02.2011,
and it is an arranged marriage. They blessed with a female baby, by
name Harika. She was aged 2 years as on 27.02.2017. Accused No.1
has filed a petition vide O.P. No.1694 of 2016 seeking dissolution of
marriage and the same was dismissed by striking off his defence.
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
6
Thus, accused No.1 has filed the above divorce petition after lapse of
five years of his marriage.
ii) A perusal of the statement of respondent No.2, complaint
dated 27.02.2017 and the charge sheet would reveal that, prima facie,
there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. According
to the learned counsel, the petitioner is a widow and was an employee
of NFC and also she used to stay with accused No.1 and respondent
No.2. There is specific mention about the cash, jewellery and
motorcycle etc. given by the parents of respondent No.2 towards
dowry. There is specific allegation about demand of additional
dowry. There is also specific allegation that the petitioner herein and
accused No.1 used to harass her, both mentally and physically and
also abusing her in filthy language. Her father used to give Rs.5,000/-
per month which accused No.1 used to take from her. There is also a
specific allegation that accused No.1 used to harass respondent No.2
by demanding an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards additional dowry.
iii) In the statement recorded under Section – 161 of Cr.P.C,
respondent No.2 has specifically stated that petitioner – accused No.2
and her son harassed saying that accused No.2 will take divorce from
her as she is suffering from thyroid. Accused No.1 maintained illicit
relation with tenant and harassing her. Respondent No.2 worked in
Omega Degree College for about three years and during the said
period, the petitioner and accused No.1 used to take care of her. But,
after some time, accused No.1 suspected her character and, therefore,
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
7
she stopped the said job. There is also a specific allegation that the
petitioner herein and accused No.2 neglected the daughter of
respondent No.2 while she was ill and her parents used to bear the
hospital expenses. There is also a specific allegation against the
petitioner – accused No.2 herein that she has harassed respondent No.2
saying that they are providing roti, kapada and makhan and that
respondent No.2 has to stay in the house as a dog and saying so, she
used to abuse respondent No.2 in filthy language. Thus, prima facie,
there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. The
defence taken by the petitioner that there are contradictions and
improvement in the statements recorded under Section – 161 of
Cr.P.C. has to be decided by the trial Court during trial, but not at this
stage.
iv) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the
petitioner herein is unsustainable in view of the aforesaid discussion.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 is
suffering with ‘epilepsy’ and the said fact was suppressed by
respondent No.2 and her parents at the time of marriage. But, a
perusal of the record would reveal that the marriage of accused No.1
was performed with respondent No.2 on 06.02.2011, they balessed
with a baby and the divorce application filed after five years of the
marriage was dismissed. Therefore, the said contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is not probable, and believable at this stage.
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
8
However, it is triable issue. The petitioner has to take the said defence
during trial. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
respondent No.2 beat the petitioner and accused No.1, but he has not
filed any document to show that the petitioner herein and accused
No.1 have lodged complaint against respondent No.2 and the same is
not borne out by record. Therefore, according to this Court, the
petitioner herein has to take the said defence during the course of trial
in the C.C.
v) Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that
the petitioner worked in NFC and retired from service. IN view of the
pendency of the present case, her Employer is not releasing her retrial
benefits. But, the same is not a ground to quash the proceedings at
this stage.
vi) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal1 and Rashmi
Chopra2.
vii) The Apex Court in several judgments examined the scope
and ambit of powers of High Court under Section – 482 of Cr.P.C. In
Bhajan Lal1 the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should
be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which
is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the
complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
9
guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section – 482 of
“(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
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 Act
concerned (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 Act concerned, 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.”
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
10
viii) In Rashmi Chopra2, the Apex Court after referring to the
principle held by it in various other judgments including Bhajan Lal1,
and Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 held that the criminal
prosecution can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie
offence is disclosed. The judicial process is a solemn proceeding
which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of
oppression or harassing. If the High Court finds that the proceedings
deserve to be quashed as per the parameters as laid down by the
Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal1, the High Court shall not hesitate, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section – 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings.
ix) According to this Court, in view of the above said
discussion that there are specific allegations against the petitioner
herein and the petitioner has failed to make out any ground to quash
the proceedings, the aforesaid decisions are not helpful to the case of
petitioner.
x) The Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State
of Maharashtra4 has categorically held that quashing criminal
proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not
disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If
allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which
cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court
3
. (2017) 13 SCC 369
4
. AIR 2019 SC 847
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
11
to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case
should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in
conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and
consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on
oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be
no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be
available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might
lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at
threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether
averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or
not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima
facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or
otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial
stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle
proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf
of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on
ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If
ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made
out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
xi) In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh5, the Apex Court referring to the earlier
judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts
in exercise of its inherent powers under Section – 482 of Cr.P.C has to
5
. AIR 2021 SC 931
KL,J
Crl.P. No.3920 of 2021
12
quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with
extreme caution.
11. CONCLUSION:
i) In view of the above authoritative pronouncement of law and
the discussion made, prima facie, there are specific allegations against
the petitioner herein and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash
the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.187 of 2017. The
petitioner failed to make out any ground to quash the proceedings in
the said C.C. by this Court exercising its inherent power under Section
– 482 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the petition is devoid of merits and same is
liable to be dismissed.
ii) The present Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__
K. LAKSHMAN, J
16th July, 2021
Mgr