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