SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kiran Kumar Dhappuri And Others vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp … on 2 March, 2020

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 14297 of 2015

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/

A-1 to A-4, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the

proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.610 of 2015 of

Women Police Station, Hyderabad (XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) which was registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 420, 497 and

506 of I.P.C.

The facts in issue are that the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant filed a private complaint before the XIII-

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal

Courts, Hyderabad, which was referred to the police under

Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and report. Basing on

the said reference, the Police, Women Police Station,

Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.610 of 2015. The

allegations in the complaint are that the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant is the father of one Jhansi Devi (hereinafter

referred to as “the victim”). 1st petitioner/A-1 is the husband of

victim; petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A-2 and A-3 are parents, 4th

petitioner/A-4 is the sister and Accused No.5 is the second wife

of the 1st petitioner/A-1. It is stated in the complaint that the
2

victim studied Engineering and employed in Infosys,

Hyderabad, prior to the marriage. The 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant performed the marriage of the victim with the 1st

petitioner/A-1 on 25.02.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Customs.

At the time of marriage, petitioners/A-1 to A-4 demanded

Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry, but the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant paid Rs.3.00 lakhs and apart from that 10 tulas of

gold ornaments to his daughter, two tulas of gold chian, one

tula of gold ring to the 1st petitioner/A-1 and also 20 tulas of

silver items, household articles and furniture worth Rs.1.00

lakh were given to the petitioners/A-1 to A-4. After the

marriage, the victim joined the 1st petitioner/A-1 at her in-law’s

house at Adilabad and after few days they both returned back

to Hyderabad. The 1st petitioner/A-1 left for Bangalore as he

was having employment there. After three months, the 1st

petitioner/A-1 returned back to Hyderabad as he got job at

Hyderabad and that the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the victim lived

in the house of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for a

period of one month and later shifted to a rented house at

Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad, and they lived happily for some

time. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner/A-1 started harassing the

victim to give her total salary to him, but she agreed to give
3

part of the salary as she will have her own personal expenses. It

is further stated that the 1st petitioner/A-1, at the instigation of

the 2nd petitioner/A-2, who used to visit them, started abusing

the parents of the victim and that the victim informed the same

to her parents, who in turn requested them not to harass the

victim. However, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 created a quarrel,

assaulted and abused the victim and sent her to the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant’s house, while she was

carrying three months pregnancy. Thereafter, the petitioners/

A-1 to A-4 never visited the victim and that the 1st

petitioner/A-1 refused to take any responsibility. The 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant incurred all the medical

expenses pertaining to the delivery of the victim. The 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant invited the petitioners/A-1 to

A-4 for naming ceremony of the child, they attended the

function, but un-necessarily created a quarrel for the reasons

best known to them and when the victim requested them not to

create a scene, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 abused them and left

the place. The elders by name Mr.K.Vanamali and

Mr.G.M.Mahatma, who were present at the time of naming

ceremony function, observed the behaviour of the petitioners/

A-1, A-2 and A-4 and that they advised them not to harass the
4

victim and requested the 1st petitioner/A-1 to take back the

victim to his company. Due to the said mediation, the victim

joined the company of the 1st petitioner/A-1 along with her

child. The 2nd petitioner/A-2 joined the victim and the 1st

petitioner/A-1 on the pretext that she will look after the child.

The 1st petitioner/A-1 used to spend her total salary for his

personal use without looking after the welfare of the child. It is

further stated that on 15.12.2008, when the victim returned

home from office in the evening, her child was crying with high

fever. The 2nd petitioner/A-2 never informed the same nor

tried to take the child to any doctor and when the victim

requested the 1st petitioner/A-1 to come along with her to show

the child to a children specialist, he refused for the same. In

that situation, the victim informed the same to the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant, who came to their house and

took the child to a doctor for treatment. On the same day night

at about 10.00 P.M., petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A-1 and A-2

assaulted the victim mercilessly, abused her and necked her out

from the house by snatching all her gold ornaments.

Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant came along

with his son and found the victim outside the house along with

child and when he tried to request petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A-1
5

and A-2 to open the door, they refused to allow them inside the

house. As there is no other alternative, the 2nd respondent/de

facto complainant has taken the victim to his house and since

then she is living with her parents. Later, the 2nd respondent/de

facto complainant along with elders approached the

petitioners/A-1 to A-4 and requested them not to harass the

victim and to take her to the matrimonial house, but they

refused to have any talks with them. Thereafter, the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant came to know that the 1st

petitioner/A-1 left for U.S.A. without intimation to them. In

spite of e-mail, dated 13.07.2009 sent by the victim to the 1st

petitioner/A-1, there is no response from him. As there was no

response from the 1st petitioner/A-1, the victim left for U.S.A.

on 21.12.2009 and doing a job and since then her child namely,

Siddartha, now aged about 8 years, is living with the parents of

the victim. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant got information that the petitioners/A-1 to A-4

have performed the marriage of the 1st petitioner/A-1 with

another lady by name Jaya Lakshmi Jasthi (Accused No.5) at

Arya Samaj, Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad on 16.02.2011 and both

are living happily at U.S.A. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de

facto complainant approached the Manager, Arya Samaj,
6

Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad, and procured the marriage

certificate of the 1st petitioner/A-1 with Accused No.5, dated

15.02.2011. Thus, the 1st petitioner/A-1, who cheated the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant and the victim with a mala fide

intention and married another lady by suppressing the fact of

his existing marriage, dated 25.02.2007 with the victim, filed

Divorce O.P.No.605 of 2015 before the Family Court, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, left to U.S.A., without informing the victim.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-4,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-

State and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 would

submit that the 1st petitioner/A-1 filed O.P.No.1211 of 2009,

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, for restitution

of Conjugal Rights, which was dismissed for want of

whereabouts of the victim; that the victim without any

information to the 1st petitioner/A-1 left the Country and living

separately since seven years; that the 1st petitioner/A-1 also

filed O.P.No.605 of 2015, seeking divorce on the ground of

desertion of continuous period of more than six years and the

same is pending; that the 1st petitioner/A-1 sent e-mails to the
7

victim on 02.06.2009 and 06.07.2009 requesting for settlement of

the disputes amicably. He further submits that the 2nd

petitioner/A-2 and the 3rd petitioner/A-3 are Senior Citizens

and they are parents of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and after

retirement of the 3rd petitioner/A-3 they have been living at

Adilabad and never joined the family of the 1st petitioner/A-1

and they were unnecessarily roped with a malicious intention

to harass them and that the allegation that the 2nd

petitioner/A-2 instigated the 1st petitioner/A-1 etc., has been

invented for the purpose of this complaint. He further submits

that the second marriage of the 1st petitioner/A-1 with Accused

No.5 is an inter caste marriage and is against the customs and

rites of their community; that the complaint did not disclose

any allegation against the 3rd petitioner/A-3. He further

submits that the 4th petitioner/A-4 is the sister of the 1st

petitioner/A-1 and she is living separately with her family and

that the complaint does not disclose any specific incident of her

involvement in the day-to-day life of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and

the victim. He also submits that the Apex Court recently ruled

that the High Courts can quash F.I.R. against a person, if it did

not disclose any offence; that the ingredients of Section 498-A of

I.P.C. do not applicable to the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 since the
8

period of cohabitation of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the victim is

only for a limited period i.e., from 25.02.2007 to 15.12.2008 and

during this period, the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the victim were

living separately; that the ingredients of Sections 494, 497 and

420 of I.P.C. are not applicable to petitioner Nos.2 to 4/A-2 to

A-4 since the marriage between the 1st petitioner/A-5 is an inter

caste marriage and that the complaint under Section 498-A of

I.P.C. against the accused is not maintainable after a gap of

more than seven years. He further submits that the complaint

is irregular as the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has no

locus standi to file the complaint and the complaint suffers from

basic requirements under Sections 198 and 198 (a) of Cr.P.C.

He further submits that without making a complaint before

police, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed a private

complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in order to take vengeance

against the petitioners/accused. In support of his contentions,

he relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar

v. State of Bihar and another1; Lalita Kumari v. Government

of Uttar Pradesh2 and K.Bharati @ Padma and another v.

Chandrakala and another3.

1
AIR 2014 SC 2756,
2
(2014) 2 SCC 1
3
(2016) 1 ALD (Crl.) 579
9

Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant reiterating the contents in the private complaint,

would submit that the truth or otherwise of the allegations can

only be decided after conducting investigation and the F.I.R.

cannot be quashed at the threshold.

As seen from the allegations in the complaint, it reveals

that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners/A-2

to A-4, except the bald and general allegation that the

petitioners/A-2 to A-4 harassed the victim i.e., daughter of the

2nd respondent/de facto complainant physically and mentally

for want of additional dowry. Since all the allegations are

attributed against the 1st petitioner/A-1 only, the proceedings

in Crime No.610 of 2015 of Women Police station, Hyderabad,

against the petitioners/A2 to A-4 are liable to be quashed.

Insofar as the 1st petitioner/A1 is concerned, a perusal of

the complaint and the material in support of the same, this

Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or

gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such

ground appears to be available to the 1st petitioner/A1 on the

basis of which the impugned F.I.R. can be quashed going by the
10

settled law in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab4; State of Haryana v.

Bhajan Lal5; State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma6 and Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Limited v. Mohd. Saraful Haque and another7.

Hence, the prayer for quashing the proceedings in Crime

No.610 of 2015 of Women Police Station, Hyderabad, insofar as

the 1st petitioner/A1 is refused.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The

proceedings in Crime No.610 of 2015 of Women Police Station,

Hyderabad, against the petitioners/A2 to A-4 are hereby

quashed.

The Criminal Petition insofar as the 1st petitioner/A1 is

dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
02.03.2020
Gsn.

4
AIR 1960 SC 866
5
(1992) SCC (Cr.) 426
6
(1992) SCC (Cr.) 192
7
(2005) SCC (Cr.) 283
11

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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