CRLP/3777/2006 of Mohammed Sadiquddin Mohammadi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2009

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the accused forquashing F.I.R in Crime No.276 of 2006 of Langerhouse Police Stationfor offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C and Sections4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2) There is no dispute about relationship of husband and wifebetween the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent. After marriage, theywent to U.A.E and lived there for some time and came back to India. The 2[nd] respondent filed private complaint in the Court of XIIIAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging theabove said offences and the Magistrate forwarded the same toLangerhouse Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation andreport. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the privatecomplaint, which is basis for issuing F.I.R does not make out requiredingredients for the above said offences.

3) In para-2 of the complaint, it was specifically stated by the 2[nd]respondent that at the time of marriage, “on demand” of the accused,parents of the complainant gave 2½ tulas of gold ornaments and someother customary Jahez articles, clothes etc., to the accused. It is also alleged that the accused used to beat the complainant mercilessly andused to abuse her in most filthy language and ill treat her and thatabout one year back, the accused beat the complainant mercilesslyand necked her out of the house and threatened that he would notreturn the amount taken by him. It is further alleged that accused wasalways saying that the complainant was not a suitable match to himand that her parents did not give any dowry etc., to him. It is contendedby the petitioner’s counsel that even as per allegations in thecomplaint there are no allegation of demand for dowry or additionaldowry. At the same time, there is some reference to dowry not beinggiven by parents of the complainant to the accused. Therefore, this isnot a case which can be thrown out at the threshold.

4) Secondly, according to the complainant, she used to work asbeautician at Sharjah and used to earn 1200 Dirams per month forabout five years. It is her case that the accused took about 70,000Dirams of U.A.E saying that he would return the same to her in India inIndian currency. According to complainant, the accused at the time ofnecking her out of house, threatened that he would not return theamount taken by him.

5) Thirdly, as per allegations in the complaint, there is demandfor presents like 2½ tulas of gold ornaments and some other customaryJahez articles, clothes etc., by the accused and he received the sameafter demand from her parents. Having regard to above allegations inthe complaint of 2[nd] respondent, it cannot be said that there is no primafacie case made out by 2[nd] respondent and that there are noingredients made out for the above said offences.

6) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that false case wasfoisted by the 2[nd] respondent against him having regard to previouscivil proceedings in O.S. No.4449 of 2004 on the file of IX Junior CivilJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, O.P. No.990 of 2005 on the file ofJudge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and O.S. No.25 of2006 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Whether the complaint is false or not has to be decided by the investigatingofficer after thorough investigation. During investigation, the petitioneralso can approach the investigating officer and put forth his defences ifany for the complaint. At this stage, I do not find any valid and legalreasons for quashing F.I.R.

7) In the result, the petition is dismissed.

December 29, 2009

KSH

_____________________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J