Telangana High Court
Smt. Gorige Bhagya Laxmi vs The State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9729 and 9864 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.
2. Criminal Petition No.9729 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.9864 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.125 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.04.2021, respondent No.2, a private job holder, lodged a complaint against the petitioners and other accused at Jaipur Police Station, alleging harassment for dowry. It is further stated 2 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.9729 and 9864 of 2022 that she married accused No.1 on 21.09.2020, after meeting through a matrimony site and an engagement on 11.09.2020. Her parents gave Rs.40 lakh in dowry. Initially, they lived happily with her aunt in Hyderabad, but after four months, her husband and aunt began physically and mentally harassing her, demanding an additional of Rs.50 lakhs. Respondent No.2 informed her parents, who supported her, and she moved to Jaipur. Her husband and aunt visited, argued, and abused her parents, threatening divorce if she did not bring more dowry. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.67 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. After completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.125 of 2022, before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur.
4. Heard Sri M. Naga Raghu, learned counsel representing Sri M.V.S. Sai Sarath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1- State and Sri Sarat Chandra Sivalanka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.9729 and 9864 of 2022
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the criminal prosecution severely impacts life, liberty, and reputation, particularly since the petitioners allegedly committed no offenses. Upon reviewing the complaint, FIR, statements, and charge sheet, no specific allegations or instances of harassment and dowry demands against the petitioners are evident. Instead, de facto complainant makes unsubstantiated claims that A3 and A4 the groom's first marriage and deceased father, acting as marriage elders. Lacking tangible evidence, the police mechanically included the petitioners in the charge sheet, abusing the legal process. The guidelines of the Apex Court for preliminary inquiries before registering crimes were violated, causing the petitioner/A2 undue mental agony and harm to their reputation. The statement of respondent No.2 reveals a four- month harmonious cohabitation post-marriage, followed by demands for additional dowry. The involvement of the petitioners remains unverified, highlighting the need for a preliminary inquiry to uncover the truth.
6. The Petitioners further submit that Respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed a complaint on April 7, 2021, against 4 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.9729 and 9864 of 2022 them and her husband, Rakesh, to prevent a divorce petition. This was after Rakesh sent a legal notice on 03.04.2021, narrating the misconduct of defacto complainant during their marital life. The reply notice of de facto complainant on 19.04.2021 contains variations and contradictions compared to her complaint. Specifically, she admitted staying with Rakesh in Hyderabad from 21.11.2020 to 28.01.2021, contradicting the allegations of harassment and dowry demands of her complaint on 14.01.2021. The Petitioners argue that the police failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry, violating the directions of the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari case. This inquiry would have revealed the truth and prevented false litigation. Instead, the police mechanically registered the complaint, investigated, and filed charges against the Petitioners, despite their lack of involvement. The Petitioners seek to quash the proceedings, citing the guidelines of the Apex Court's to protect innocent individuals from false litigations.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was his first marriage, and accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded dowry. He 5 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.9729 and 9864 of 2022 pointed out that passport of accused No.1 lists Lavanya as his spouse, despite marrying respondent No.2. Accused No.1, holding an H1 visa, allegedly cheated respondent No. 2. As there are serious allegations against the petitioners, he urged the Court to deny the petition to quash proceedings and instead allow the trial to proceed.
8. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that accused Nos. 3 and 4 are alleged to have performed the marriage ceremony between Accused No.1 and respondent No. 2, despite knowledge of prior marriage of accused No.1. However, the allegations against accused Nos.3 and 4 lack specificity and fail to constitute a cognizable offense. Conversely, accused No.2 is implicated in demanding dowry, and Accused Nos.1 and 2 are accused of harassing respondent No.2. Notable contradictions exist between the complaint and reply notice, which warrant further examination during trial. Given the absence of prima facie evidence against accused Nos.3 and 4, this Court deems it fit to quash the proceedings against them and the proceedings against accused No.2 are liable to be dismissed. 6
SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.9729 and 9864 of 2022
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition No.9729 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 is dismissed. Criminal Petition No.9864 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 are allowed and the proceedings against them in C.C.No.125 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 20.11.2024 dsu