Telangana High Court
Kurama Anand Prakash vs The State Of Telangana on 22 January, 2020
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
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