Telangana High Court
Mohammed Waseem Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 9 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6071 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.294 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial under the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, Adilabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Women Police Station, Adilabad District stating that her marriage was performed with the petitioner on 20.12.2013. After the marriage, they lived happily for a period of one month, and thereafter disputes arose between them. It is further stated that at the time of marriage, her parents gave all house hold articles, six tulas of gold and twenty silver ornaments, motor cycle worth Rs.1,00,000/- to 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6071 of 2024 the parents of the petitioner and spent an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for marriage. Later, when respondent No.2 and the petitioner were about to go Uganda for eking out their livelihood, the petitioner and his parents shortened her hair and asked her to dress up to thigh level to appear as sales woman in the automobile shop of her husband at Bale, Uganda. The petitioner and respondent No.2 stayed at M. Bale for six (6) months and thereafter, respondent No.2 was sent to India as she was carrying pregnancy of five (5) months.
3. It is further stated that during her stay at M. Bale, she attended the duty as sales woman and at that time, the petitioner started demanding Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry and forced her to inform the same to her parents for arranging the said amount. On refusal, the petitioner and her in laws started harassing her mentally. Later, her father arranged an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards additional dowry and the same was collected by the father and brother of the petitioner. Thereafter, they again demanded the remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from her parents, or 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6071 of 2024 else they warned her that the petitioner may give Talak to her.
4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.294 of 2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad District.
5. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of 14 months in lodging the complaint. He further submitted that the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet and in the complaint are vague and no specific overt acts were mentioned against the petitioner. He further submitted that the allegations mentioned in the charge 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6071 of 2024 sheet and in the complaint were taken place at Kampala of Uganda Nation and no incident was taken in India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the allegations are taken in toto, the Police cannot prosecute the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the charge sheet is filed without following the due process as contemplated under Section 188 of Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that so far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. In defence accused Nos.2 and 3 filed the documents and the same were marked as Exs.D1 to D5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.2 and 3 and accordingly acquitted them. He further submitted that the judgment clearly shows that the harassment was not established against accused Nos.1 to 3. He further submitted that in view of the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3, continuation of proceedings against accused No.1 is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6071 of 2024 allegations leveled against the petitioner are considered to be vague and prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted, the petitioner, who is the main accused in the said crime, has to face the trial. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
9. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the main allegation against the petitioner is that when respondent No.2 and the petitioner are in Uganda, the petitioner used to harass respondent No.2, mentally and physically by shortening her hair and by forcing her to wear short dresses without her consent. The other allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded additional dowry from the parents of respondent No.2.
10. A perusal of the record reveals that the trial Court has conducted the trial against accused Nos.2 and 3 in the same case, and when the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6071 of 2024 accused Nos.2 and 3, the trial Court acquitted them for the offences alleged against them. Further, it is also observed that the alleged harassment was not established against accused Nos.1 to 3.
11. Further, though there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, wherein it is clearly observed that only the offence which is committed in India by an Indian Citizen can be tried in India and no sanction of the Central Government for the same is required, but when the offences are allegedly committed outside India by a citizen of India, then previous sanction of the Central Government is required for the trial to commence. In the present case, except the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2, there are no other allegations against the petitioner of having committed the same in India. That apart, the trial Court in its judgment clearly observed that the allegations are baseless and there is no proof for the same. Though the trial was conducted for accused Nos.2 and 3, the evidence on record shows that witnesses deposed against accused No.1 also. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are considered 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6071 of 2024 to be vague and continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.294 of 2021 on the file of the learned special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial under the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, Adilabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 09.09.2024 SAI