SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Eareddy Sukumar Reddy 3 Ors vs The State Of Ts., Rep. By P.P. … on 20 September, 2019

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

CRL.P.No.1892 of 2017

ORDER:

Petitioners-A1 to A4 seek to quash the proceedings initiated

against them in F.I.R.No.5 of 2017 on the file of Women Police Station,

Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 4 and Section6 of Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961.

On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner/A1, a case in Crime

No.5 of 2017 was registered against the petitioners/A1 to A4 for the

aforesaid offences by the Inspector of Police, Women Police Station,

Karimnagar District. It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage

between the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the 1st

petitioner/A1 took place on 22.02.2016 and at the time of marriage

her father has given an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs cash, 40 tulas of

gold, Rs.15.00 lakhs worth of agriculture land and Rs.2.00 lakhs

worth of household articles. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent

joined the company of the 1st petitioner/A1 and they lived happily

quite for some time. Subsequently, at the instance of petitioner Nos.2

to 4, the 1st petitioner/A1 started harassing and ill-treating the 2nd

respondent to bring additional dowry and that she was thrown away

from the house. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent sent back to her

matrimonial house through mediation of elders. However, the

petitioners again started ill-treating and harassing the 2nd
2

respondent/complainant for additional dowry and as such she gave

a complaint on 15.10.2016 to the police against the petitioners.

Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to appear before the police

concerned and after conciliation, there was no re-union between the

parties.

Though Vakalath filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, there is

no representation on her behalf. Hence, heard the learned counsel for

the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

for the 1st respondent/ State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners have not committed any of the offence as alleged in the

complaint. He further submitted that the 2nd

respondent/complainant filed the present complaint with false and

frivolous allegations, after due deliberations and consultations with

her family members, as a counter blast to the case i.e., F.C.O.P.

No.146 of 20016 filed by the 1st petitioner/A1 against the 2nd

respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights. He further

submitted that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is in the habit

of giving false complaints as and when she was asked to join with the

1st petitioner/A1.

A perusal of the record reveals that the 1st petitioner/A1, ie.,

husband of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant, has filed

F.C.O.P.No.146 of 2016, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 before the Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions
3

Judge, Karimnagar, for restitution of conjugal rights. The said O.P.

was contested by the 2nd respondent/wife and she has filed her

written statement admitting her relationship with the 1st

petitioner/A1 stating therein that her marriage was performed with

the 1st petitioner on 22.04.2016. However, she has stated that the 1st

petitioner used to harass her on demand of additional dowry and

drove her without any valid reason. She also stated that after

marriage the 1st petitioner/A1 and the other petitioners started

harassing her on the ground that she is not beautiful and they would

have got more dowry, if the 1st petitioner could marry any other lady.

She also made allegations against the 1st petitioner that he is a

habitual drunkard and used to force her to consume alcoholic drinks.

However, she categorically stated that after filing of the aforesaid

F.C.O.P., she lodged the present complaint against the petitioners on

11.01.2017 which was registered as a case in Crime No.5 of 2017 on

the file of the Women Police Station, Karimnagar, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 4 and Section6 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and because of the attitude of the 1st

petitioner she is not willing to join with him. She also stated that she

is going to file divorce petition for dissolution of marriage between

her and the 1st petitioner. The learned Judge, Family Court,

Karimnagar, after careful consideration of both the oral and

documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the 1st

petitioner/A1 is ready to join the conjugal society of the 2nd
4

respondent/wife and nothing elicited in the cross-examination of the

1st petitioner that he treated the 2nd respondent/wife with cruelty by

demanding her to bring additional dowry and he himself left the

society of the 2nd respondent without any sufficient cause. Further

the Family Court has opined that the 2nd respondent/wife herself has

voluntarily withdrawn from the society of the 1st petitioner/A1

without reasonable cause or valid grounds and accordingly, allowed

the aforesaid F.C.O.P. directing the 2nd respondent/wife to join the

society of the 1st petitioner/husband to lead marital life. However,

as seen from the material available on record, the 2nd

respondent/wife thereafter did not join the society of the 1st

petitioner rather she has filed the present complaint as a counterblast

to the case filed by the 1st petitioner/A1.

In view of the categorical findings of the learned Judge, Family

Court, Karimnagar, in the aforesaid F.C.O.P. filed by the 1st

petitioner/A1 that the 2nd respondent/wife has categorically stated

that she is not willing to join the society of the 1st petitioner and that

there was no demand of additional dowry whatsoever by the

petitioners nor alleged cruelty inflicted upon the 2nd

respondent/wife, I am of the considered view that continuation of

criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A4 will be a futile

exercise and would amount to abuse of the process of Court and that

the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised in the

present case.

5

For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is

allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.5 of 2017 on the file of

Women Police Station, Karimnagar, initiated by the second

respondent herein against the petitioners/A1 to A4 for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 4 and Section6 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

__
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

20.09.2019
Gsn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation