CRLP/5167/2019 of Korolla Arun Kumar Vs The State of Telangana, on 31 December 2019

Arguments

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-6, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.558 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tandur, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who is the wife of the 1[st] petitioner/A1, a case in Crime No.14 of 2018 was registered against the petitioners/A1 to A6 for the aforesaid offences by the Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District. It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage between the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant and the 1[st] petitioner/A1 took place on 26.08.2016 before the elders at Methodist Church, Mehdipatnam and at the time of marriage, her father had given an amount of Rs.60,000/- cash, twenty tulas of gold ornaments, one bike and all other household articles. After the marriage, the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainantjoined the company of the 1[st] petitioner/A1 and they lived happily for three months. Thereafter, petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3 started harassing her for additional dowry and suspecting her to whomsoever she talks and that the 1[st] petitioner/A1 abused and beat her several times. The 1[st] petitioner/A-1 took all her gold ornaments and petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3 harassed her both mentally and physically and treated her as a servant. The 4[th] petitioner/A4, who is the sister of the 1[st]petitioner/A1 and petitioners 5 and 6/A5 and A6, who are close relatives of petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3, frequently visited the house of the 1[st] petitioner/A1 on holidays and on other occasions and used to harass her with a demand of additional dowry. When the 2[nd]respondent/de facto complainant informed to the 1[st] petitioner/A1 about her pregnancy, petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3 sent her to her mother’s house and for the last nine months she is residing with her mother. On 14.02.2018, the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant gave birth to a male child, who died soon after the birth, but the petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3 did not come to see her. Thus, the acts of the petitioners/A1 to A6 constitute the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.558 of 2018 and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tandur.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A6, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent/ State and learned Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A6 submitted that the present complaint is made by the 2[nd] respondent/ de facto complainant as a counter blast to O.P.No.1387 of 2017 filed by the 1[st]petitioner/A1 before the Family Court Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant. After receipt of notices in the above divorce O.P., the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant has attended the Family Court on 19.02.2018 and requested time to file counter-affidavit and thereafter on 21.03.2018 she lodged the present complaint against the petitioners/A1 to A6 to take revenge and to escape from her misdeeds. It is further submitted that even according to the averments of the complaint, the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant was staying with her parents at Tandur from nine months prior to filing of the complaint on 21.03.2018 and there is no allegation as if the 1[st] petitioner/A1 or any other petitioner came to her parents place and harassed her for additional dowry. If really anything happened when she was in the house of the 1[st] petitioner/A-1, she would have given complaint, but giving the present complaint after receipt of notices in divorce O.P., clearly shows the malice and indifferent criminal attitude of the 2[nd]respondent/de facto complainant. It is further submitted that the allegations in the complaint are omnibus in nature and there are no specific overt acts against any of the petitioners and further petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3 and other petitioners are living at different places. In support of the said contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in . Reshmi Chopra v. The State of U.P. and others [1]

1 Crl.A.No.594 of 2019, dt.30.04.2019

Learned Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant submits that there are specific overt-acts against the petitioners/A-1 to A-6 and the contents of the charge sheet prima facie establish the offences alleged against them and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

All the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A6 relate to disputed questions of fact. The Court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of the prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A6. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of the accused and also the Court’s decisions to proceed against them in a given case is well settled. The Court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.

On perusal of the impugned charge sheet and the material in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can

Conclusion

be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the petitioners/A1 to A6 on the basis of which the impugned charge sheet can be quashed going by the settled law in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab[2]; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[3]; State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma[4] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited v. Mohd. Saraful Haque and another[5]. Hence, the prayer for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.558 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, is refused.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

31.12.2019 Gsn

_____________________

JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

2 AIR 1960 SC 866

3 (1992) SCC (Cr.) 426

4 (1992) SCC (Cr.) 192

5 (2005) SCC (Cr.) 283