Telangana High Court
Pandi Prakasa Rao vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 5 September, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6988 of 2019
ORDER:
This petition is field by A3, who has been practising as an advocate, seeking quashment of C.C.No.965 of 2019 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet cognizance of which was taken for the offence under Sections 498A, 448, 427, 323, 504 and 506 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under:
3. The marriage of the de-facto complainant was taken place with A1 about 7 years ago. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of A1's family, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs, 5 tulas of gold ornaments, house hold articles of value of which is about Rs.50,000/- were given to the family of A1 and performed marriage. Four years after the marriage, her husband A1, her mother-in-law, her husband's brother-in-law (the petitioner herein/A3), her younger brother-in-law and his wife started gossips that she has 2 illegal intimacy with another person. All accused wanted her to agree the illegal intimacy with another person. They harassed for two years. De-facto complainant informed the same to her mother also eleder brother, Saidulu, and dispute is placed before the elders, wherein her husband agreed that they are incorrect, however, they demanded additional dowry. Father of the de-facto complainant has given one buffalo worth of Rs.50,000/-. A1 promised to take care of the de-facto complainant.
4. However, her husband has again continued the harassment. Her husband has called the elders and in their presence, he asked the de-facto complainant to agree that she has illegal intimacy, which the de-facto complainant did not accept, on which the de-facto complainant was necked out of her in-laws house by keeping the children with them. Number of times, panchayat was held and all the elders have stated that mistake is with A1. The family members of A1 has informed the de-facto complainant that they will perform the marriage of A1 with another women by giving divorce. 3 All accused are spreading roomers that the de-facto complainant is having bad character. On 06.07.2019 at 2.00 p.m., A1 came to Kasarabad village, criminally trespassed into her house, abused her in filthy language and beat her with hands and legs. The mother and the brother of the de-facto complainant have intervened, but A1 has also abused them and he has damaged two cots.
5. On complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.121 of 2019 was registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 448, 427, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation, police have recorded the statement of the de-facto complainant, visited the scene of offence, seized the damaged cots, examined all the witnesses and filed the charge sheet. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A3 has filed this petition seeking quashment on the following grounds:
6. The de-facto complainant has made bald allegations against the petitioner, which are ex facie false and continuation of proceedings amount to abuse of process of 4 law, the petitioner is no way concerned with the allegations levelled against A1, there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner and he has been residing in a different village, whereas A1 and other family members are residing in other village.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet against the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.965 of 2019 can be quashed?
9. There is no dispute that the marriage of the de-facto complainant with A1 was taken place and during wedlock, the de-facto complainant gave birth to two children. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of A1 and a practising advocate at Nandigama, Krishna District. The de-facto complainant has narrated many incidents to attract various offences, including Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused. On careful scrutiny of all the allegations with the help of the complaint and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., of 5 the de-facto complainant and others, it is clear that at the time of marriage, the family of the de-facto complainant has given some cash and jewellery to A1 and his family members.
10. After four years of the marriage, the disputes started between A1 and the de-facto complainant, matter was taken before the elders on which A1 has expressed that the dowry given was not sufficient on which the mother of the de-facto complainant has sent one buffalo After sometime again A1 has started harassing the de-facto complainant. He wanted the de-facto complainant to admit that she has got illegal intimacy with other person in the presence of elders in panchayat. Subsequently, A1 has sent out the de-facto complainant out of the house by keeping the children with him. Family members of A1 have expressed that they will take divorce with the de-facto complainant and perform the marriage of A1 with other women.
11. On 06.07.2019, A1 entered the house of the de-facto complainant's mother where the de-facto complainant was staying and abused the de-facto complainant, beat her and 6 damaged the cots and other properties, threatened her with dire consequences and left.
12. In all the incidents narrated above, there is no mention by the de-facto complainant or her mother or anybody on her behalf about the involvement of the petitioner/A3. The allegation levelled against the petitioner/A3 are that after four years of marriage, de-facto complainant has said that all family members of A1, including the petitioner/A3, has spread the roomers that she has got illegal intimacy with other person. This statement is the only major allegation levelled against the petitioner/A3. The de-facto complainant has also mentioned that the petitioner/A3 has forced her to admit in the presence of elders that she has got illegal intimacy with other person. These are the two incidents which the de-facto complainant has connected the petitioner/A3 with the offences alleged against him.
13. The de-facto complainant has made a general statement that her husband and all the family members, including the petitioner has spread the roomers that the 7 de-facto complainant has got illegal intimacy with other person. The de-facto complainant has not mentioned that with whom the petitioner/A3 has spread the rumours that the de-facto complainant has developed illegal intimacy. Further, the name of the person with whom the petitioner and other family members stated to have developed intimacy is not mentioned. The de-facto complainant has not mentioned as to on which date the petitioner has mentioned that the de-facto complainant has developed illegal intimacy, there is no mention as to on what date, with whom what kind of news or false information was spread by the petitioner. The de-facto complainant has not given the details as to in which year, on what date, at what time, with whom, what kind of roomers spread by the petitioner. Though the de-facto complainant has gave a general statement that all the family members of A1 has spread the roomers that she has got illegal intimacy with other person, who is that person is also not mentioned. Therefore, without there being any sort of details, basing on general statement, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections 8 498A, 448, 427, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even if the allegations are correct, then the question would be how they constitute offence under Section 498A IPC
14. There is no mention as to on what date, at which place, in whose presence the petitioner has pressurized the de-facto complainant to accept her illegal relations. The de-facto complainant has not mentioned the names of the elders and the police have not recorded the statements of the elders in whose presence the accused stated to have pressurized the de-facto complainant to accept her illegal intimacy. Even this statement is accepted to be correct, still nothing is specifically mentioned against the petitioner. It is omnibus statement that all the accused have pressurize the de-facto complainant to accept that she has got illegal intimacy with other person.
15. Admittedly, the petitioner is a practising advocate in Nandigama, whereas all the incidents were happened at other village. The petitioner has never stayed in the family of A1. The petitioner is no other than the brother-in-law of 9 A1. When the petitioner has not been residing along with the family of A1 and he has been residing in other town and practising as an advocate, it is clear that the name of the petitioner is involved in order to pressurize the family of A1 so that they will come to the terms.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others1, wherein it is held at paras 17 and 19 as under:
"17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana ((2018) 14 SCC 452), it was also observed that:-
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnance'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein, i.e., none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made 1 AIR 2022 Supreme Court 820 10 against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."
In Mirza iqbal alias Golu and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2, wherein it is held at para 11 as under:
"18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case (2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735 : (AIR 2005 SC 1989) had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the 2 AIR 2022 Supreme Court 69 11 proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed."
17. Considering the ratio laid down in the above authorities, it is clear that on perusal of the entire complaint and charge sheet, the allegations in respect of offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 448, 427, 323, 504 and 506 IPC are all made against A1. However, so far as Section 498A IPC is concerned, a general statement has been given by the de- facto complainant that A1 and his family members, including the petitioner, has asked her to admit that she got illegal intimacy with other person. Therefore, mentioning of those names are very vague and bald statements, no specific allegations disclosing involvement of the petitioner specifically in any of the incident has not been mentioned. Therefore, by applying the rationale of the above authorities, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.965 of 2019 cannot be proceeded with.
12
18. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.965 of 2019 against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 05.09.2022.
ES