CRLP/8792/2009 of Dr.K. Radharani, Vs The State of A.P., on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.4(For short, ‘A-4’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quashproceedings in Calender Case No.521 of 2009, pending on the file ofthe Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyala, KurnoolDistrict,registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C.and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (In short, ‘TheAct’) in so far as A-4 is concerned.

2. Whereas the petitioner is A-4, the respondent No.2is the de-facto complainant in theCalender Case. For the sake of convenience,I refer the parties as arrayed in theCalender Case.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The marriageof the de-facto complainant with A-1 in the case was performedon 25-04-1999 and at the time of marriage an amount ofRs.4,00,000/- cash and 10 tulas of gold ornaments were given to A-1.After the marriage, they lived happily only for three months and duringtheir marital life, they were blessed with one female child. Thereafter,A-1 at the instigation of his father A-2, his mother A-3 and his sister A-4used to harass the de-facto complainant mentally and physically evenfor minor issues abusing her in filthy language. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant informed the same to her parents who later pacified the situation. But, thereafter also there was no change in the attitude ofA-1 and instead A-1 to A-4 developed hostility and used to beat her forbringing additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her parents for securinga job to A-1, A-2 to A-4 finally beat the de-facto complainant andpushed out her along with her female child from the matrimonial housedemanding to bring the additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, A-1 toA-4 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences.

4. The contention of learned counsel for A-4 is as follows :Admittedly A-1 issued legal notice to the de-facto complainant on 22-06-2009, for divorce, and as a counterblast the complaint was filed on27-06-2009. Admittedly, A-1 filed O.P. on the file of Judge, FamilyCourt at Kadapa seeking for the dissolution of the marriage betweenthem on 04-07-2009. The learned counsel for A-4 further contendsthat A-4 has been falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motives toblack mail and coerce A-1 to come to terms with the complainant. Infact, A-4 is residing at Ananthapur working as Assistant Professor ofRadio Diagnosis in the Government Medical College, Anantapur,whereas A-1 to A-3 used to live at Kadapa and the de-factocomplainant has been living at Nandyal and there are no specificallegations and there are only bald allegations against her. Hence, theentire proceedings against A-4 in C.C. No.521 of 2009 are liable to bequashed.

5. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for thede-facto that prima-facie there is material to prosecute A-4 for thealleged offences and unless necessary trial is conducted it cannot besaid that she is innocent of the charges.

6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds arethere in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for?

7. I have gone through the record. There are no specificallegations against A-4 and they are only bald in nature. It is furtherpertinent to note here that Section 498-A is being misused widely byreason of which the marriage system is being very much affected. Incases of this nature relatives of husbands are being impleaded withoutany basis with ulterior motives. Such a practice is to be curbed.

Accordingly, with the above observations the Criminal Petitionis allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.521 of 2009 pendingon the file of the Court Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal,Kurnool district, in so far as A-4 is concerned.

__________________________

Dated:30-11-2011.Dsh.

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

209

DSH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8792 OF 2009

December 30, 2011