Telangana High Court
Archana Singh vs State Of Ap., Another on 27 December, 2021
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10070 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner - A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against her in Crime No.152 of 2013 on the file of the Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 497 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act').
2. The case in brief was that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the police on 17.08.2013 at 11.00 AM stating that she was married with A1 on 22.04.2004 at Hotel Tristar, Secunderabad. It was a love marriage. Her parents gave cash of Rs.75,000/- towards dowry, 12 tulas of gold, furniture and household articles worth Rs.60,000/- and bore the marriage expenses of Rs.2.00 lakhs (as the reception was held at Chiran Fort Club, Begumpet, Secunderabad on 23.04.2004). After marriage, they resided at the house of the sister of A1 at Muralidhar Apartments, West Marredpally for one and half years. From the date of marriage, both her husband and his sister expected her to work, run the household and their expenses. Her husband never had a job or a stable business and expected her to bring money from her parents or to obtain bank loan to start business. Money paid to him was used by him for his lavish expenses like gambling boozing, outings with friends and family and his sisters and their kids' fees and daily expenses. When she questioned him, he and his sister tortured her physically and mentally. After all the daily Dr.GRR,J 2 CrlP.No.9974 of 2013 fights, they decided to shift to another rented house and stayed at Chandrashekar Apartments, Jyothi colony, AOC Gate, Secunderabad. He used to come late every day from the work and did not take care of any expenditure and fight with her for questioning him. He also tortured her for not having kids, due to which she ended up spending close to Rs.1.00 lakh at Mamata Infertility Center, Secunderabad. He obtained a job in Genpact by producing fake documents of his educational qualifications and bought a Wagon-R car through ICICI Bank and used his income to pay the vehicle loan and for gambling and boozing. As he failed to pay the loan completely, the car was seized by the bank people. He also mortgaged her gold without her knowledge and used for his debts. He had taken debts of Rs.5.00 lakhs, but had not informed her. In October 2011, she came to know that her husband was in relationship with one Archana Singh (petitioner herein) from the year 2008 i.e. for about 5 years. They expected her to accept their relationship and to live with them. Her husband left the house in June, 2013 and started staying with the petitioner. It is further contended by the 2nd respondent that she gave birth to a baby girl, but her husband did not take care of the child as he expected a boy. Her husband was torturing her by sending abusive messages against her and her family. Basing on the said report, the above crime was registered against A1 to A3 vide Crime No.152 of 2013 under Section 498-A and 497 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of DP Act.
Dr.GRR,J 3 CrlP.No.9974 of 2013
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a lady working in a private company. She was a colleague of A1 for some time when A1 worked in that company. The petitioner was a law abiding citizen, having good reputation in the society. She was never involved in any criminal activities having no criminal antecedents. The allegations in the complaint were mainly in respect of A1 and about the activities of A1. No specific allegations were made against the petitioner. The allegations were omnibus in nature and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner had not denied her relationship with A1. In the complaint, specific allegations were made against the petitioner also and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on merits.
7. Perused the record. The complaint would disclose that the allegations made by the 2nd respondent were mainly against her husband i.e. A1. Except contending that A1 was having extra marital affair with the petitioner herein, no specific allegations were made by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner herein. As per the judgment Dr.GRR,J 4 CrlP.No.9974 of 2013 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in U. Suvetha v. State1, a girl friend or a concubine being not connected by blood or marriage is not a relative of the husband as per Section 498-A IPC and they cannot be implicated in a case under Section 498-A IPC. Section 497 IPC was struck down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joseph shine v. Union of India2. Hence, as the allegations in the complaint would not attract against the petitioner herein, it is considered fit to allow the petition.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.152 of 2013 on the file of the Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad, against the petitioner - A3.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J December 27, 2021 KTL 1 2009 (6) SCC 757 2 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676