Telangana High Court
Syed Qamar Hasan vs The State Of Telangana, on 16 September, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12053 OF 2017
ORDER:
This petition is filed by A2 to A4 against whom cognizance was taken by XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 420 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, "the Act").
2. The facts in brief as can be gathered from the charge sheet are that the wedding of the de-facto complainant was performed with A1 on 28.12.2013 at Taj Krishna Hotel by spending Rs.30 lakhs and gave 50 tulas of gold and jahez articles, including diamond rings, almas bangles and other jewelry. Prior to marriage, it was told that A1 is having US University degree and is working in Abu Dhabi in a multinational company and earning huge amounts. After the wedding, the de-facto complainant joined the family of A1, but marriage has not been consummated and she came to know on the first night itself that A1 is an impotent and he has requested one week time to consume the marriage. She did not inform anybody. Even within the period of one week, marriage 2 could not be consummated. A1 is sadistic person, used to harass her for one reason or other, used to abuse her in filthy language and used to comment like moti, fool, budhi etc., and in the absence of her husband left for Dubai for joining the service by leaving her in in-laws place. After leaving the de- facto complainant, petitioner No.1, who is her father-in-law, had bad eye on her and always used to pass personal comments and used to tease on one reason or other.
3. On 14.03.2014, the de-facto complainant went to Dubai and after reaching there, she realized that her husband and impotent, he used to see the pornographic movies and he used to use medicine for sex power enhancement etc. After eight days again she was sent to Hyderabad and marriage was not consummated. The de-facto complainant has again her in-laws house where she was treated like a maid servant and could not provide minimum necessities and they went on criticizing her and the petitioners used to threaten her, abuse her in filthy language and used to compare her with models and used to tell her that in case if marriage of A1 is performed with any other girl, they would have got more dowry.
3
4. Her in-laws have demanded Rs.15 lakhs as additional dowry. On demand of her husband and in-laws i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 2, her parents gave additional dowry of Rs.15 lakhs on three different occasions by withdrawing the bank account of her mother and father. All the three petitioners have insisted to sell her gold ornaments and to purchase some properties for which she refused on which she was harassed physically and mentally. Her in-laws and petitioner No.3 and Farhana and Mohammed used to demand to sell the flat which was gifted to her by her parents. She refused on which the petitioners have caused cruelty, demanding to get her share from her parents. When her husband resided at Hyderabad, he did not take care about her, did not protect from the petitioners. During the course of chat between the de-facto complainant and A1, he has admitted that he is impotent.
5. On 20.07.2014 the de-facto complainant's parents approached the petitioners and asked them as to how they could cheat them as A1 is an impotent on which the petitioners and her husband thrown the de-facto complainant out of the house on demanding Rs.25 lakhs and until and unless the said 4 amount is given, they will not talk to the de-facto complainant and they will not settle the disputes, they also threatened them to kill them by engaging anti-social elements and also threatened to take Qula by forgoing all her claims and belongings.
6. On a complaint by the de-facto complainant, police have registered a case in Crime No.300 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 420 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this petition on the following grounds:
7. That the de-facto complainant in all has resided in matrimonial house for 17 days and resided 8 days in Dubai. Even if the contents of the complaint are accepted, no offence is made out, the de-facto complainant does not want to continue the matrimonial life for personal reasons, petitioner No.3 has not uttered any word against the de-facto complainant, he is made accused as he is the brother of A1, there are no allegations of ill-treatment, the allegations are very vague in respect of the petitioners/A2 to A4, offence of Section 420 IPC 5 is not maintainable, and as per the medical reports, her husband was not suffering from impotency, the de-facto complainant has also filed DVC, she has also filed O.P.No.1794 of 2014 on the file of Additional Family Judge and obtained ex parte divorce against A1 as he could not attend on account of lookout circular issued against him.
8. The notice given to respondent No.2 was served on her, but she could not appear.
9. Heard both sides and perused the record.
10. Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.565 of 2017 can be quashed?
11. According to the petitioners, even if the contents of the entire charge sheet are accepted to be true, there is no offence against them. A1 is not before the Court. According to the petitioners, the de-facto complainant has stayed only 17 days in her in-laws house. On going through the complaint made by the de-facto complainant, it is clear that after her husband left for Dubai, her father-in-law had a bad eye on her, used to pass 6 personal comments and used to tease her. When she returned back from Duabi, she joined in her in-laws house in the month of June, 2014, and they used to treat her as a maid servant. They have not provided minimum necessities. They used to criticize her and abuse her by comparing her with models. They also used to say that if marriage of A1 was performed with another girl, they could have got more dowry.
12. It is also stated specifically in the complaint that on demand made by her in-laws i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 2, the de-facto complainant parents have given Rs.15 lakhs as additional dowry by withdrawing from the bank account of her father and mother. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 stated to have insisted to sell her gold ornaments and to purchase some properties, which she refused, she was harassed mentally and physically. It is also specifically stated at pare 3 and page 3 of the complaint that her in-laws and petitioner No.3 and others used to demand her to sell the flat which was gifted to her by her parents and when she refused to do so, caused cruelty. They also used to harass her, torture her demanding her to get her share in the property from her parents. Finally, on 7 20.07.2014, her parents and elders approached her husband and in-laws and questioned as to how they were deceived on which they threatened them and driven the de-facto complainant out of the house asking them to bring Rs.25 lakhs as additional dowry, until then they will not talk to them and they will not resolve the dispute.
13. On considering the above allegations, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners there is no allegation against petitioner No.3, who is brother of A1. He stated to have demanded the de-facto complainant to sell the flat which was gifted to her by her parents. Except that there are no other allegations against him. Therefore, there is no other allegation against petitioner No.3 in respect of any harassment or cruelty meted out against the de-facto complainant.
14. However, so far as A2 and A3 i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, there are clear allegations of harassing the de- facto complainant. According to the de-facto complainant, A2 and A3 have demanded Rs.15 lakhs as additional dowry which was given by the parents of the de-facto complainant, they have harassed and torture the de-facto complainant, abused them in 8 filthy language and finally she was sent out of the house and demanded Rs.25 lakhs as additional dowry. Therefore, when there are strong and prima facie material against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the offences levelled against them, this Court cannot quash the case against them.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted an authority in Neelu Chopra and others Vs. Bharti1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 5 held as under:
"5. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants."
16. It is to be noted that in respect of petitioner No.3 this Court has already observed that except one allegation which is 1 (2009) 10 SCC 184 9 also vague, there is no other allegation against petitioner No.3. However, there is a strong prima facie material against the petitioners and overt acts against A1 and A3. Hence, the case against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 cannot be quashed.
17. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the de-facto complainant has given Qula to A1. As per the copy of Qula, the de-facto complainant has mentioned that she has not launched any legal proceedings or made any claim with regard to matrimonial life. By taking that statement it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that because she herself has stated that she has not initiated any proceedings before any Court, the petition has to be allowed. But, it is to be noted that so far as this case is concerned, basing on the material available before this Court in the form of charge sheet, there is strong prima facie material against the petitioners/A1 and A2. This Court cannot compare the statements of the de-facto complainant given in other forums to see that there are contradictions, thereby cannot hold that the contents of the complaint in this case cannot be believed. It is 10 for the trial Court to consider all the defences raised by the petitioners.
18. In view of the above, the criminal petition is allowed in part in so far as petitioner No.3/A4 is concerned and dismissed so far as petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A2 and A3 are concerned.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 16.09.2022 ES