Telangana High Court
G. Vijaya Bhasker Reddy vs P. Anitha on 15 November, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1493 OF 2020
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4812 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The defacto complainant/1st respondent lodged a complaint stating that she was married to A1 on 14.06.2009. Four months after the marriage, both A1 and the defacto complainant went to Germany on 25.06.2011. A1 started harassing the defacto complainant at Germany physically and mentally for additional dowry. A1 humiliated her in front of others and used to harass her and forcibly took the signatures on empty blank papers and sent her back to India.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, the police investigated the case and filed charge sheet.
4. According to the complaint, four months after the marriage, A1 and 2nd respondent went to Germany. It is not alleged in the complaint that during four months in India, there was any kind of harassment that was inflicted on the 1st respondent/defacto complainant by the parents-in-law who are A2 and A3. The 2 allegations of beating and harassment are against A1 and most of the harassment had taken place in Germany. Even according to the investigation, the 1st respondent did not stay with the petitioners 2 and 3 at any point of time after returning from Germany. As seen from the charge sheet, it is alleged that the petitioners 2 and 3 did not take steps to pacify the matter.
5. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple. 3
7. The implication of petitioners 2 and 3 is without any basis. Except stating that the petitioners 2 and 3, who are parents-in-law did not take steps to pacify the matter there are no allegations to attract an offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3/A2 and A3 are liable to be quashed.
8. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners 2 and 3/A2 and A3 in C.C.No.4812 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. However, 1st petitioner/A1 shall face trial.
9. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed in part. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:15.11.2023 kvs