Telangana High Court
Rama Shyam vs The State Of Telangana on 21 October, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3692 of 2019
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners/A6 and A7, who are the maternal uncle and aunt of A1 in C.C.No.2832 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, cognizance of which was taken against the petitioners and other accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, "the Act") on a complaint given by the de-facto complainant, who is no other than the wife of A1.
2. The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under:
a. The marriage of the de-facto complainant was performed with A1 on 02.12.2012. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of the accused, the parents of the de-facto complainant gave Rs.3 lakhs, 50 tulas of gold, 1 kg of silver and household articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and that when the de- facto complainant and A1 were blessed with son, the de-facto complainant's parents presented 10 tulas gold and deposited Rs.50 lakhs in FDR. After marriage, the de-facto complainant went to her in-laws house at Krishna Nagar, Jagtial and stayed 2 for a period of one month. During the said period, her husband, in-laws and the brother of A1 harassed and tortured her physically and mentally for additional dowry and asked her to oblige their illegal dictation. On 24.01.2013, the de-facto complainant went to USA, stayed with her husband and got pregnant in the month of April, 2013, but her husband under the influence of her in-laws forced her to get aborted the pregnancy, threatened her not to talk with anyone and forced her to discontinue her studies. In the month of October, 2013, when the de-facto complainant came to India to attend the marriage of her husband's brother, during the said period, her mother-in-law harassed and abused her and also at her instigation, A1 abused her through phone in filthy language and she left to USA.
b. In 2014, when the de-facto complainant again got conceived, her mother-in-law came to USA and both A1 and her mother-in-law used to tortured her and even did not give her food, when her mother came to USA, her husband and mother in-law insulted her mother and harassed her, did not offer food and asked her to get out of the house. When the de-facto complainant came to India in 2016 for the first birthday of her son, her husband and in-laws and the brother of her husband 3 insulted her and her relatives and her in-laws by saying that if they get the marriage of A1 with another girl, they would get Rs.1 crore. In the month of March, 2017, A1 booked tickets for the de-facto complainant and her son to go to India for tonsuring function of the son and told her that she shall act to the tunes of his parents, brother and the petitioners and blocked her phone number and when the de-facto complainant begged A1 to send papers to come to USA, he refused to do so. c. The petitioners used to tell false allegations on her to her relatives in Warangal and used to come to Jagityal to her in- laws and used to abuse her while her stay at jagityal. Basing on the complaint of the de-facto complainant, police have registered a case in Crime No.35 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and issued FIR.
3. During the course of investigation, LW.8/Sub-Inspector of Police examined the de-facto complainant and LWs.2 to 7 and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against A2 to A7 alleging that they have committed offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 IPC 4 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Since A1 is residing at USA, it is stated that separate charge sheet will be filed against him.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed on the following grounds:
The allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint even if are taken as correct and accepted, they do not constitute any offence against them. The complaint filed by the de-facto complainant is mala fide, oppressive and vexatious and there is no prima facie case against the petitioners and therefore continuation of the proceedings against them will amount to abuse of process of law and hence, sought for quashment of the charge sheet.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet against the petitioners can be quashed?
7. According to the de-facto complainant, her wedding was performed with A1 on 02.12.2012. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs, 50 tulas of gold, 1 kg of silver and other household articles were given as dowry and immediately after the marriage, harassment was started by her mother-in-law, 5 father in-law and brother of her husband and later went to USA and in USA also, as dictated by her mother in-law, her husband used to harass her and got her pregnancy aborted, never allowed her to continue her further studies. She was threatened and her husband and mother-in-law used to abuse her. When all of them came to India on three occasions after marriage and before filing the complaint, the other accused also harassed the de-facto complainant and on last occasion when she came to India, her husband has not sent the papers for going back to USA in spite of her efforts and ultimately she filed the complaint.
8. On going through the complaint on the basis of which and also the statement of the de-facto complainant and other witnesses, it is clear that except in the last part of the complaint there is no mention about the names of the petitioners. The overt acts attributed against the petitioners as per the complaint and the statement of the de-facto complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., are:
"Both the petitioners have made false allegations against the de-facto complainant with her relatives."
Except the above statement, there is no other statement whereby either the de-facto complainant or anybody whose 6 statements are recorded. In fact, even the investigating officer also did not specifically mention anything in the charge sheet against the petitioners. If the alleged harassment by the petitioners as stated by the de-facto complainant in her 161 Cr.P.C., is considered, what all she has stated that the petitioners have made false allegations with her relatives. The de-facto complainant did not mention on which date, which of the petitioners, what are the allegations made by them and with which relatives of the de-facto complainant. If really the petitioners have made certain allegations against the de-facto complainant with her relatives, she should have given the names of the relatives with whom the petitioners have made allegations.
9. Further, even according to the de-facto complainant, both the petitioners did not speak to her directly. Both the petitioners did not harass the de-facto complainant in any manner. The prosecution has not recorded the statements of so-called relatives with whom the petitioners stated to have made the allegations, as alleged by the de-facto complainant. Even the contents of the allegations are also relevant here. 7
10. In order to constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC, the de-facto complainant is expected to place before the Court that the petitioners being the relatives of her husband have harassed as defined in explanations 1 and 2. Unless the nature of allegations allegedly made by the petitioners and the strength of the allegations made by them are proved, it is not possible to analyze.
11. In fact, on careful perusal of Section 498A IPC, it is clear that the harassment of either husband or relatives shall be such in nature that on account of such harassment, the de-facto complainant would go to the extent of causing hurt to herself or committing an attempt to suicide or some other grave offence. Therefore, as long as the petitioners have not uttered anything directly with the de-facto complainant and as long as the utterances allegedly uttered by the petitioners to the relatives of the de-facto complainant are not known, it cannot be said that on account of such allegations made by the petitioners, the de- facto complainant got hurt and does an act which is likely to hurt her person. Therefore, except making bald allegations against the petitioners, nothing is placed before the Court. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. 8
12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2832 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 21.10.2022 ES