CRLP/9562/2012 of G.Saramma Vs The State of A.P., rep. by the P.P., on 31 December 2012

ORDER:-

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by thepetitioners-A.2 and A.3 to quash the proceedings against them in CrimeNo.249 of 2012 of Jammikunta Police Station, Karimnagar District, registeredfor the offences under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the DowryProhibition Act, 1961( for short ‘the Act’).

2. The allegation in the complaint would go to show that marriage of A.1with de facto complainant had taken place on 03.07.2010. At the time of hermarriage, her parents gave Rs.8.00 lakhs towards pasupukumkuma, oneTula gold ring and 5 tulas silver besides other lanchanams. They livedhappily for six months. Thereafter A1 addicted to vices and started harassingthe de facto complainant physically and mentally by saying that she is notgiving birth to children and that he would go for second marriage. A.1 alsodemanded to bring additional dowry and kept her in a room and locked fromoutside and also used to beat her. The sister-in-law(A.2) and brother-in-law(A.3) of the de facto complainant encouraged A.1 to demand additionaldowry. On 28.06.2012 A.1, with the instigation of A.2 and A.3, necked her outof the house demanding to bring additional dowry. Basing on the reportgiven by the de facto complainant, police registered case in Crime No.249 of2012 of Jammikunta Town Police Station for the offences under Section498A IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-A.2 and A.3 contended that from theinception of the marriage, A.1 and de facto complainant were residingseparately and that the petitioners are no way concerned with the matrimonialaffairs of the de facto complainant and A.1; that since marriage of A.1 with thede facto complainant was a love marriage, the petitioners were not present atthe time of the marriage and therefore continuation of proceedings againstthem is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

4. At the initial stage of investigation, the Court has to see whether theuncontroverted allegations in the F.I.R made out a prima facie case. Once the allegations in the F.I.R made out a prima facie cognizable offence, then itis the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation and such dutycannot be interdicted or trifled. Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC readsas follows:

“(b) harassment of the woman where such harassmentis with a view to coercing her or any person related to herto meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuablesecurity or is on account of failure by her or any personrelated to her to meet such demand.”

From the above provision, it is clear that any unlawful demand made bythe husband or relative of husband of the woman is a cruelty within themeaning of Section 498A IPC.

5. It is specifically alleged in the complaint that the petitioners, who aresister and brother of A.1, encouraged A.1 to harass the de facto complainantand that all the accused demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.8.00lakhs. It is an unlawful demand. Therefore, prima facie case for theoffenceunder Section 498-A IPC is made out. There are no grounds to quash theF.I.R.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

31.12.2012

Vjl

___________________

JUSTICE K.C. BHANU