Telangana High Court
Allam Suneetha vs The State Of A.P. Another on 27 December, 2021
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9974 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner - A2 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 dowry of Rs.75,000/- as cash, 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 (petitioner herein) 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 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 said Archana. 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 falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations made against her were omnibus in nature. No specific allegations were made against the petitioner. The petitioner was a lady and a Government employee. She was living separately from the 2nd respondent and A1 since more than four years. If the proceedings were not quashed, the petitioner would be put to irreparable hardship and prayed to allow the petition.
5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that specific allegations were made against the petitioner also in the complaint and the petition cannot be quashed at this stage.
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. The petitioner is the sister of A1. The 2nd respondent and A1 lived in the house of the petitioner for a period of one and half year after their marriage. The allegations against the petitioner were only to the extent that she expected her to work and run the household and their expenses. The said allegations were not with regard to any demand of additional dowry or any harassment attracting the definition of Section 498-A IPC. Thus, the allegations of Dr.GRR,J 4 CrlP.No.9974 of 2013 Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of DP Act do not pertain to the petitioner. Section 497 IPC is also not applicable to the petitioner. As there were no specific allegations made against the petitioner and only omnibus allegations were made, which are of general in nature, but not pertaining to any demand of dowry or harassment or wilful conduct of such a nature likely to drive the 2nd respondent to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health attracting the definition under Section 498-A IPC or Sections 4 & 6 of the DP Act, 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 - A2.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J December 27, 2021 KTL