Telangana High Court
Mohammed Moiz Hussain vs The State Of Telangana on 1 September, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1510 of 2019
ORDER:
This petition is field by the petitioners/A1 and A4 in C.C.No.198 of 2018 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad , against whom cognizance of offence was taken for the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 420 IPC and Section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, "the Act".
2. The facts in brief are that the de-facto complainant is the wife of petitioner No.1 whose marriage was performed on 03.10.2013 at Red Rose Function Hall, Hyderabad. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.25 lakhs, 60 tulas of gold, jahez articles, a house flat and other immovable properties were demanded by the family of petitioner No.1/A1 and the family of the de-facto complainant agreed to fulfil the said demands. A1 was working in London and arrived 10 days prior to marriage and he has also demanded Rs.2 lakhs towards wedding dress to him and also to his sister. Marriage was performed by spending Rs.12 lakhs and also Rs.7 lakhs for Mehandi and other 2 functions. A1 went back to London after one month and the de-facto complainant gave birth to a child baby boy for which medical expenses were borne by the parents of the de-facto complainant. A1 came to India on 06.07.2014 and remained for one month. When A1's father fell ill and was admitted in the hospital for which the family of the de- facto complainant spend Rs.2,50,000/-. Unbearable with the harassments made by the petitioners and other accuse, the de-facto complainant has filed a detailed complaint before the police.
3. Police have registered a case in Crime No.285 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 406, 420 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and completed the investigation and charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.198 of 2018 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the allegations levelled by the de-facto complainant are incorrect and after charge sheet was taken on file, there was a compromise between the parties and 3 accordingly, petitioner No.1 and the de-facto complainant and others have executed matrimonial settlement deed and the de-facto complainant has deposed in the trial Court in C.C.No.55 of 2016, which was separated in respect of A2 and A3, wherein she has deposed nothing against any of the petitioners herein and also others, thereby A2 and A3 were found not guilty and acquitted and there is no material to proceed against the petitioners herein and therefore, sought for quashing of C.C.No.198 of 2018.
5. On the other hand, Sri S. Ganesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there was settlement between the parties and accordingly as the de-facto complainant has not deposed anything incriminating the petitioners the trial Court has found A2 and A3 not guilty of the offences.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet in C.c.No.198 of 2018 can be quashed against the petitioners?
4
8. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have demanded huge dowry at the time of marriage along with other articles, collected money towards wedding dresses, made the de-facto complainant family to perform marriage in a grand manner by spending huge money and that even after performing the marriage as the accused wanted, the petitioners and their family members started harassing the de-facto complainant physically and mentally. It is also the case of the de-facto complainant that petitioner No.1 though stated that he has been working in London with a visa facility to take his wife after wedding, he has cheated the de-facto complainant and actually he was working in a ticketing company and he has not having visa to take his wife and other family members. The petitioners have put lot of restrictions on the de-facto complainant, including not to speak to her friends, not to use social media like face book, whatsapp etc., and not to go out for anything, and to wear veil (burqa) always whenever she go out along with family members.
9. However, on perusal of the statements, complaint etc., it appears to this Court that there is a prima facie 5 case against the petitioners. However, according to the petitioners, there was a settlement between the parties, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant decided to separate amicably and accordingly, they executed matrimonial settlement deed, the copy of which is filed before this Court, according to which the de-facto complainant and all the accused Nos.1 to 4 have agreed to pay Rs.6,85,000/- as per the orders in DVC.No.102 of 2015 and accordingly paid the said amount on 30.11.2007 vide cheque No.728291 and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.18 lakhs totalling to an amount of Rs.24,85,000/-. As per the said agreement, the petitioners have also agreed to return all jahez articles as per the list, all cookery, artificial jewellery, dresses as per separate list. Both the parties have further agreed to take divorce and the de-facto complainant further agreed that she will not claim any maintenance. Most importantly at clause No.6 the de-facto complainant has specifically undertaken to close all the case pending in various Courts, including superior Courts and not to file any complaint further in respect of the wedding relating issues.
6
10. Basing on the said agreement, both the parties have decided to settle all the disputes and close all the cases, pending in all the Courts, including the case in C.C.No.198 of 2018 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad which is under challenge before this Court.
11. The petitioners have also filed copy of the deposition in C.C.No.55 of 2016 in order to show that the agreement entered into between the parties dated 04.04.2018 has also been implemented as the de-facto complainant and her father have deposed in criminal case that they have withdraw the case. The copy of the deposition of the de- facto complainant as PW.1 in C.C.No.55 of 2016 would go to show that her marriage with Petitioner No.1 was performed in 2013 and though she filed a complaint before the police, she has no grievance at all against the accused and she has been withdrawing all the allegations made against A1 to A4. Learned Magistrate has pronounced a judgment on 28.09.2018 finding these two persons i.e., A2 and A3 not guilty of the offences.
7
12. It is to be noted that originally a case has been filed on the complaint of the de-facto complainant against all the four accused (including petitioners herein/A1 and A4) and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.55 of 2016. However, A1 and A4 were not attending the Court, thereby case against them was separated and renumbered as C.c.No.198 of 2018 (which is under challenge in this petition). Original case i.e., C.C.No.55 of 2016 was continued against A2 and A3 and in the said case, the de- facto complainant has deposed that she has no grievance against the accused. She has not deposed anything incriminating in respect of all the accused, including the petitioners herein. Therefore, while recording the same, the trial Court has found A2 and A3 not guilty and acquitted of all the charges.
13. Therefore, once a settlement has been arrived at between the de-facto complainant and petitioner No.1 and others, once the de-facto complainant has received all the monies, including permanent alimony and once there is a settlement in respect of maintenance of the child borne to 8 them, once divorce has already been taken, no cause of action survives even in this petition to proceed with. The petitioners have also specifically agreed in writing under the matrimonial settlement deed dated 04.04.2018 that the de-facto complainant will withdraw all the cases.
14. However, the de-facto complainant and the petitioners could not appear before the Court and file compromise. It is submitted that the de-facto complainant after settlement between the parties and after giving evidence in the Court in C.C.No.55 of 2016 stated to be not coming forward to file the compromise petition. Therefore, considering the circumstances explained, since the de- facto complainant has no grievance and since the case against A2 and A3 has already been disposed of and ended in acquittal, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A4 also amounts to abuse of process of law.
9
15. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others1 and Ruchi Agarwal vs Amit Kumar Agarwal and others2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under
16. Considering the rationale laid down by the Apex Court in the above two authorities, it is clear that the offences alleged against the accused are not the offences against the society and the dispute between the parties is only a family dispute and therefore, considering the circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, the petition can be allowed.
17. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.198 of 2018 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 01.09.2022.
ES 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 2 (2005) 3 SCC 299