SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kurama Anand Prakash vs The State Of Telangana on 22 January, 2020

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 985 of 2019

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

by the petitioners/A1 to A5, seeking to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.738 of 2017 on the file of the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge-

cum-X-Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

The facts in issue are that on a complaint lodged by the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant, the police, K.P.H.B. Colony Police

Station, Cyberabad, registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2017. After

completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the

petitioners/A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A

of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The

allegations in the charge sheet are that the marriage of the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant was performed with the 1st

petitioner/A1 on 06.02.2014. At the time of marriage, the parents of

the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant gave cash of Rs.7,00,000/-

towards dowry. After the marriage, nuptial ceremony was arranged in

parents’ house of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for three

days. On the first day, the 1st petitioner/A1 avoided to consummate

the marriage on the plea that he was tired and could not participate in

the cohabitation. On the second day and third day also, the 1st

petitioner/A1 repeated the same. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de

facto complainant stayed with the 1st petitioner/A1 at Bethanypeta,

Bhimavaram for six months, along with other petitioners. During the
2

said period also, the 1st petitioner/A1 maintained distance from her

during night times and avoided to consummate the marriage on the

plea that he was trying to loose his weight and requested her not to

solicit sex with him. On 12.04.2014 the petitioners/A1 to A5 subjected

the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for the sake of additional

dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs by altercating with her on the plea that the

dowry paid by her parents was insufficient. On 10.05.2014, the

petitioners/A1 to A5 confined the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

in a room throughout the day without providing any food and

assaulted the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on several times and

demanded additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs. The contents of charge

sheet also reveal that at the time of marriage, the 1st petitioner/A1 was

working in Globarina Technologies, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, and in the

month of August, 2014, he set up a separate residence in Pragathi

Nagar, Hyderabad. On the demand made by the 1st petitioner/A1, the

parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant came down to

Hyderabad and purchased Electrolex Refrigerator, washing machine,

TV, Double Cot, Mixie and other household articles worth Rs.1.00 lakh

and till November, 2014, both of them stayed in Pragathinagar. During

the said period, the other petitioners/A2 to A5 used to visit them

frequently and all of them demanded her and her parents to pay

additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs and when the 2nd respondent/de

facto complainant expressed her inability to fetch such an amount, the

petitioners/A1 to A5 subjected her to both physical and psychological

torture and also domestic violence. The 1st petitioner/A1 never
3

consummated the marriage and whenever, the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant asked him as to why he was avoiding her, he used to

inform to her that he was taking medicine for the infection developed

in his stomach and as per the doctor’s advise only he was avoiding her

and also threatened her with dire consequences, if she divulge the

same to others, including her parents, as such she could not inform the

same to anybody. In the 1st week of December, 2014, the 1st

petitioner/A1 shifted the house to Nizampet, Hyderabad and both the

couple lived together till June, 2015. During the said period also the 1st

petitioner/A1 used to avoid the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

without consummating the marriage on the plea that he was suffering

from ill-health. In the last week of January, 2015, when the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant advised the 1st petitioner/A1 to

approach sexologist to undergo necessary treatment, he assaulted her

very badly. Though the same was informed to the petitioners/ A2 to

A5 about the inefficiency of the 1st petitioner/A1 to consummate the

marriage, they told to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant that she

would adjust with him without disclosing the same to others and also

informed that they know the said problem prior to the marriage. From

the above, it is clear that the petitioners/A1 to A5 have wilfully

suppressed the impotency of the 1st petitioner/A1 and cheated the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant and on account of the fraud played

by the petitioners/ A1 to A5, the family life of the 2nd respondent/de

facto complainant has been ruined. As the parents and elders were

insisting the 1st petitioner/A1 to undergo treatment, all of a sudden on
4

02.05.2015, the 1st petitioner/A1 beat the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant indiscriminately and also made vain bids to kill her by

pressing her neck with his two hands and thereafter tried to set her

ablaze by sprinkling kerosene and left the home after taking gold

jewellery weighing about 15 sovereigns and when the same was

informed to the other petitioners/A2 to A5, they have supported the 1st

petitioner/A1 only. In the 1st week of June, 2015, the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant raised the dispute before the elders

and in the meeting of the elders, all the petitioners/A1 to A5 came and

reiterated their demand for additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs and

refused the proposal of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for

undergoing treatment of the 1st petitioner/A1 under a qualified

sexologist and also admitted that he is an impotent. All the

petitioners/A1 to A5 harassed the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

mentally and physically for want of additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs

and on 18.12.2016, the petitioners/A1 to A5 came to the residence of

the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant in a car and threatened her

with dire consequences and on the instigation of the petitioners/A2 to

A5, the 1st petitioner/A1 caught hold of her tuft with his left hand and

give fist blow on her face with his right hand and all the

petitioners/A1 to A5 have forced the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant to sign on non-judicial stamp papers showing her

acceptance for taking divorce.

Though the matter was posted for final hearing, learned Counsel

appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant did not evince
5

any interest to proceed with the case for the last three occasions.

Hence, heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A5, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and perused

the record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A5 would submit that

all the allegations made by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant are

far from truth, created only for lodging a false complaint so as to

attract the penal provisions and to harass the petitioners/A1 to A5 in

order to made them to obey the directions of the 2nd respondent/de

facto complainant. It is further submitted that at the time of marriage,

the 1st petitioner/A1 was working in Eluru Branch but not in

Hyderabad Branch and both the couple led happy marital life for about

two months and thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

pressurized the 1st petitioner/A1 to resign his job at Eluru and to go to

Hyderabad to secure employment and on her pressure only, he shifted

to Hyderabad and set up family and that the parents of the 1st

petitioner/A1 i.e., petitioners/A2 and A3 used to send the expenditure

for the maintenance of the family through bank account. The 1st

petitioner/A1 secured job on 23.02.2015. On 01.05.2015, the mother of

the 1st petitioner/A1 i.e., the 3rd petitioner/A3 was admitted in hospital

at Rajahmundry, due to kidney problem and on 03.05.2015 when the 1st

petitioner/A1 requested the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to

come to Rajahmundry, along with him in order to see his mother, she

refused the same. Due to misunderstanding, on 17.07.2015, the 1st

petitioner/A1 got issued legal notice seeking divorce and the 2nd
6

respondent/de facto complainant got issued a reply notice on

18.08.2015 with all false allegations and thereafter, she lodged a false

complaint on 15.09.2015 against the petitioners/A1 to A5, before the

Police, Madhapur Police Station, which was registered as case in Crime

No.585 of 2015. The S.H.O., Madhapur Police Station, called the

petitioners on 29.11.2015 and they appeared before them. At that time,

the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant submitted a requisition to the

Investigating Officer stating that due to mistake the complaint was

lodged by her and requested to drop the action against the

petitioners/A1 to A5. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer, filed final

report, dated 10.01.2016 referring the case as “action dropped” against

the petitioners/A1 to A5. It is also submitted that in D.V.C.No.29 of

2017, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant categorically deposed

that she has not filed any protest petition against the final report. It is

further submitted that on 23.12.2015, a compromise deed was entered

into between the parties and as per the terms, an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- was deposited by opening a joint account in the name of

K.V.Benarji Bau and T.R.K.Sundar Raju (father of the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant) in the State Bank, Bhimavaram,

towards permanent alimony, which was given to the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant at the time of mutual divorce.

Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant by giving a good

bye to the recitals of the said compromise deed filed O.P.No.255 of

2016 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and impotency of the 1st

petitioner/A1. It is submitted that in the compromise deed, the 2nd
7

respondent/de facto complainant stated that she underwent pregnancy

test at Bhimavaram and Hyderabad and there is no positive result and

thus the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant fraudulently attributed

impotency to the 1st petitioner/A1. Thereafter, the joint account

holders, colluded with the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant,

obtained bankers cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant and an amount of Rs.17,282/- was

withdrawn and closed the account on 18.06.2016. Subsequently, after

keeping the bankers cheque for about 38 months, the same was given

to the 2nd petitioner/A2 on 22.01.2018, without discharging the

obligation in filing mutual divorce petition. After filing chief

affidavits in O.P.No.255 of 2016, the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant filed a memo, dated 23.01.2017 stating that she is not

pressing the O.P., hence the same was dismissed. It is further

submitted that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has started

another round of litigation with self same allegations mentioned in

Cr.No.585 of 2015 and got registered it as Crime No.144 of 2017 at

Kukatpally Police Station. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

also filed D.V.C.No.29 of 2017, claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20

and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

in order to harass the petitioners. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner/A1 filed

Divorce Petition in O.P.No.675 of 2017 and divorce has been granted

on 10.07.2019. It is also submitted that in D.V.C.No.29 of 2017, the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant filed an application for sending the 1st

petitioner/A1 to potency test and the same was allowed and that the
8

report was issued in favour of the 1st petitioner/A1, which is placed on

record. It is also submitted that once the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant made complaint with self same allegations and withdrew

the same by mentioning that it was given by mistake and the police

concerned filed final report, which was accepted by the Magistrate, it is

not open for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to file the present

complaint with the self same allegations and the same is nothing but

abusing the process of law.

A counter-affidavit came to be filed by the 2nd respondent/

de facto complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint lodged by

her. In the grounds, it is stated that the trial Court framed charges

against the petitioners/A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under

Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961 and the case was posted for trial; that the petitioners/A1 to

A5 have not availed the remedy of discharge; that as mixed question of

facts and law are involved, the petitioners/A1 to A5 cannot invoke the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.; that

earlier case in Crime No.585 of 2015 of Madhapur Police Station was

closed basing on the compromise between the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant and the petitioners/A1 to A5; that there is no legal

embargo to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to file second

complaint in Crime No.144 of 2017 with new facts incorporating the

deliberate fraud and cheating perpetrated by the petitioners/A1 to A5

apart from subjecting her to dowry harassment, psychological trauma

and domestic violence; and as the petitioners/A1 to A5 came to the
9

residence of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on 18.12.2016 in a

Car and threatened her with dire consequences unless she gives

divorce to the 1st petitioner/A1, as such the K.P.H.B. police have

jurisdiction to register the case. In support of her contentions, the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant relied on the judgments of the Apex

Court in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. and others1 and in State of

Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan and another2.

As seen from the allegations in the complaint as well as the

charge sheet, it reveals that there are no specific allegations against the

petitioners/A-2 to A-5, except the bald and general allegation that the

petitioners harassed 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 C.C.No.738 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional

Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally,

Cyberabad, against the petitioners/A2 to A-5 are liable to be quashed.

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

complaint, charge sheet 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 charge sheet can be quashed going by the settled law in

1
(2009) 4 SCJ 275
2
(2003) 8 Supreme 861
10

R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab3; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4; State of Bihar

v. P.P.Sharma5 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited v. Mohd. Saraful

Haque and another6. Hence, the prayer for quashing the proceedings in

C.C.No.738 of 2017 on the file of the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge-

cum-X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, insofar as the

1st petitioner/A1 is refused.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The

proceedings in C.C.No.738 of 2017 on the file of the II-Additional

Junior Civil Judge-cum-X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally,

Cyberabad, against the petitioners/A2 to A-5 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
22.01.2020
gkv/Gsn

3
AIR 1960 SC 866
4
(1992) SCC (Cr.) 426
5
(1992) SCC (Cr.) 192
6
(2005) SCC (Cr.) 283
11

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