Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Edara Sumanth, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 September, 2023
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3136 of 2021
ORDER:
Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in C.C.No.967 of 2020 on the file of learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings against them.
2. The offences alleged against them are under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Respondent No.1 is State. Respondent No.2 is de facto complainant.
4. Sri G.Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and Sri M.Chalapati Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant submitted arguments.
5. The following facts are required to be noticed:
On a written information lodged by Smt. Eedara Rajitha, Crime No.259 of 2019 was registered by Women Police Station, 2 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.3136 of 2021 Guntur Urban District. Deputy Superintendent of Police duly investigated into the crime and having listed eight witnesses a charge sheet was laid before learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 4, who are arraigned in the charge sheet. Sri Eedara Sumanth is accused No.1. De facto complainant is Smt. Eedara Rajitha. Their marriage was solemnized on 10.03.2017 according to Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock they were blessed with a female baby, who is now aged 11 years. Smt. Eedara Padma/A.2, Sri Eedara Govardhanarao/A.3 are parents of A.1. Sri Eedara Ananth/A.4 is the younger brother of A.1. The allegations are that when the marriage of the spouses was solemnized, on demand, the bride's family had given dowry of Rs.6,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold and marriage was solemnized expending Rs.10,00,000/- The lady joined the matrimonial home. A.1 is a software employee working at Hyderabad. A.2 to A.4 are members of the joint family. It is alleged that the husband, his parents and the brother-in-law/A.4 have been 3 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.3136 of 2021 dissatisfied with the dowry that was obtained and towards additional dowry they have been pressurizing the married lady to sell the vacant site standing in the name of the de facto complainant and give that money to them and they have also been demanding her to procure some more immovable property from her parents. All of them were demanding her to do all these so as to enable them to do real estate business. Parents of the victim woman refused to concede to these demands stating that the immovable properties were meant for children of the spouses. It is specifically alleged that A.2 to A.4 have been telling the married woman that had the marriage of A.1 been performed with another woman he would have got Rs.5,00,00,000/- towards dowry. All the accused having found that their demands were not met, they used to belittle the married woman in the presence of all the relatives as and when the relations gather at some functions. They started enquiring into private lives of the parents of the married woman. Without there being any reason they used to raise one dispute or the other and caused so much mental stress on the victim woman. When the parents of the victim woman visited their house, they used to abuse them. A.1 stopped giving money for running the 4 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.3136 of 2021 home. On a day A.1 sent her out of the house since she was not prepared to sell the immovable property and give money. In that regard, A.4 took the married lady and dropped her at the house of her parents. There were exchange of notices between parties, yet accused did not relent in their cruel acts. It is with these allegations, charge sheet was laid.
6. It is the above charge sheet that is sought to be quashed by the present petition.
7. In the petition it is stated that the second respondent/wife has no desire to lead matrimonial life since the year 2012 and she started avoiding her husband since the year 2015. Accused No.1, on his office work, went to the United States of America and while leaving the country he had given his HSBC credit card to his wife to meet family expenses and he returned to India in the year 2017 and despite his request his wife never joined him and he waited till August, 2018 and there was no improvement and in those circumstances he got issued a notice dated 23.08.2018 calling upon her to join his matrimonial home. She sent a reply stating that he should first pay Rs.40,000/- per month for a period of six months and only 5 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.3136 of 2021 thereafter she would join matrimonial home. Accused No.1 then issued a notice dated 05.09.2018 and thereafter he received a reply from his wife on 07.09.2018. He then issued another notice on 21.04.2019 and received a reply notice dated 15.05.2019. All these notices and reply notices indicated the same facts. All the attempts for reunion failed. Respondent No.2/victim woman and her parents and others were demanding Rs.2,00,00,000/-from the accused for settlement of the dispute. When the petitioners refused for the said proposal respondent No.2 lodged a written information with police on 21.08.2019. Even thereafter a notice dated 09.09.2019 was sent by accused No.1 to which he received a reply notice from his wife. In this petition it is further mentioned that subsequent to the registration of crime, a settlement took place among parties and a document dated 13.10.2019 was executed between A.3 and father of respondent No.2. Under this agreement first accused agreed to give Ac.1.50 cents of land to his daughter and Rs.70,00,000/- cash to his wife. On such terms respondent No.2 agreed to cooperate for divorce by mutual consent and agreed to withdraw her maintenance case and the present criminal case. In pursuance of the agreement, 6 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.3136 of 2021 accused No.1 paid Rs.5,00,000/- to his wife under an acknowledgment dated 13.10.2019. However, his wife/respondent No.2 along with others resiled from it and started demand for Rs.2,00,00,000/- instead of Rs.70,00,000/-. All the accused refused for this cheating.
8. It is further stated in the present petition that the correspondence between parties would indicate their separate living since 2015 and the present criminal proceedings cropped up in the year 2019 and this case is full of false and fabricated allegations and without due investigation a charge sheet in a routine manner was filed. It is for these reasons they seek quashment of the criminal proceedings.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioners earnestly submitted that accused No.4/petitioner No.3 is only the brother of accused No.1 and he did nothing except dropping respondent No.2 at her parents' house and he is falsely roped in this case. Learned counsel submits that in matrimonial proceedings false implication of in-laws has become order of the day and Courts exercising inherent jurisdiction are 7 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.3136 of 2021 required to consider the facts appropriately and quash the proceedings.
10. Learned counsel for petitioners cited Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar1. That was a case of quashment of F.I.R. in a matrimonial case. After analyzing the facts and the law in the statute and the precedent, their Lordships held that where the allegations made against in-laws are general and omnibus without any specific and distinct allegations and without specifying the specific role played by each of the accused, such criminal proceedings are deserved to be quashed.
11. It is on these submissions, learned counsel for petitioners urged this Court to allow this petition.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State argued that in the case at hand there are specific overt acts attributed against each of the accused and at the stage of consideration of charge sheet, this Court is to see whether the allegations made in the charge sheet prima facie disclose an offence or not and 1 2022 SCC Online SC 162 8 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.3136 of 2021 once this Court notices that the facts alleged prima facie constitute an offence, then this Court should not interfere with the criminal process and shall leave the matter to be decided on merits by the trial Court. Learned counsels urge this Court to dismiss this petition.
13. Point that falls for consideration is:
"Whether institution and continuance of
criminal proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 is abuse of process of Court?"
POINT:
14. The various facts alleged in the charge sheet and the various facts alleged in the present quash petition have been noticed in the earlier paragraphs of this order. The various notices issued by accused No.1 and the replies received by him from his wife/respondent No.2 and the alleged settlement resulting in a written document dated 13.10.2019 and payments allegedly made pursuant to that agreement and the opposite party's refusal to abide by the terms of the agreement and once again making a demand for more money are all 9 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.3136 of 2021 matters of defence and they are not part of the charge sheet mentioned allegations. Certain additional material papers were filed for petitioners which contain the evidence of victim woman as PW.1 and evidence of accused No.1 as RW.1 in F.C.O.P.No.483 of 2019 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. They relate to a maintenance case filed by the victim lady against her husband. These papers are filed to urge this Court that their contents would further falsify the charge sheet mentioned allegations. Thus, the facts alleged in the charge sheet are refuted by further facts as mentioned in the petition. It is undisputedly the law that when facts are at dispute the truth or otherwise of the facts shall be subjected to scrutiny and such scrutiny is the forte of the trial Court and not this Court which is invited to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
15. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred in the earlier paragraphs of this order, this Court has to now appreciate the facts on record. A perusal of the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would at once point out that the dowry allegedly 10 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.3136 of 2021 paid by the bride's family at the time of solemnization of marriage was paid on the demands of all the accused. The allegations do indicate estrangement between spouses. The allegations further indicate the unlawful demand on part of the petitioners coercing the married woman to sell her properties and give them that money. These allegations are specifically made as against each of the accused. Therefore, this is not a case where a reading of the allegations in the charge sheet do not indicate any offence. The truth or otherwise of the allegations would be decided at the trial and the fact remains that the facts on record make out a case for further process of trial and therefore, one cannot say that institution and continuance of impugned criminal proceedings is abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the point is answered against the petitioners.
16. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 05.09.2023 Ivd 11 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.3136 of 2021 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3136 of 2021 Date: 05.09.2023 Ivd