CRLP/8431/2009 of Beebi, (A4) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2011

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4and 5 (For short, ‘A-4 and A-5’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seekingto quash proceedings in Crime No.166 of 2009 on the file of NagaramPalem Law and Order police station, Guntur, registered for offencespunishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 ofDowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (For short, ‘The Act’).

2. Whereas the petitioners are A-4 and A-5, the Respondent No.2is the de-facto complainant in the Criminal Case. For the sake ofconvenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Criminal Casehereafter.

3. In brief the prosecution version is as follows : The de-factocomplainant is the legally wedded wife of A-1 in this case, A-2 and A-3are the parents of A-1 and A-4 and A-5 are the sisters of the father-in-law of the de-facto complainant. The marriage of the de-factocomplainant with A-1 was performed on 04-05-2008 in RevenueKalynamandapam at Guntur. At the time of marriage the parents of thede-facto complainant deposited an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in the bankaccount of her father-in-law and also gave an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards clothes and another amount of Rs.30,000/- for purchasinggold chain and ring to A-1. After their marriage, at the demand of A-1, the parents of the de-facto complainant further deposited an amount ofRs.52,000/- in the bank account of A-1 for purchasing Honda Shinemotor cycle. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant went to the house ofA-1 to lead conjugal life. In the early days of marriage, she was lookedafter very well by A-1 to A-3. Thereafter, A-1 to A-3 along with A-4 andA-5 and others used to harass the de-facto complainant mentally andphysically to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- and as shefailed to do so, they necked out her from the house on 05-05-2009. Subsequently, on 31-05-2009, A-1 went to the parents of the de-factocomplainant and beat her and also tried to kill her before her parents. Immediately thereafter, the parents of the de-facto complainant lodgeda report in Nagarampalaem police station alleging that there was nocohabitation between the de-facto complainant and A-1 and A-1 to A-5used to harass the de-facto complainant for additional dowry. Uponreceiving the said report, the police called A-1 and his relatives andconducted enquiry, upon which A-1 confessed that he would take careof the de-facto complainant promising to undergo counseling before adoctor at Guntur. But, thereafter also there was no change in theattitude of A-1 and the in-laws of the de-facto complainant. Further,they tried to beat mediators sent by the parents of the de-factocomplainant for settlement in Hyderabad on 19-07-2009. Hence, A-1to A-5 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences.

4. It is the main contention of learned counsel for A-4 and A-5 thatsignificantly A-4 and A-5 are the sisters of the father-in-law of the de-facto complainant who live at Giddaluru of Prakasam district which isat a distance of 400 K.M.s from Hyderabada, whereas A-1 to A-3 areliving in Hyderabad and there are no specific allegations against themand they have been falsely implicated in this case and hence the entire proceedings against A-4 and A-5 are liable to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for thede-facto complainant that prima-facie there is material to prosecute A-4and A-5 also for the alleged offences and unless necessary trial isconducted it cannot be said that they are innocents 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 and only bald allegations aremade against A-4 and A-5. Further they live far away from Hyderabad.Section 498-A I.P.C. is widely misused by planting all those related tomale spouses in cases of this nature, which practice is to be curbed. By false implications the very purpose of Section 498-A is beingdefeated and it is affecting the system of marriage. In fact, by doing so,even genuine cases of harassment of wife will be defeated. Hence, itis a fit case to quash the proceedings.

Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petitionis allowed quashing the entire proceedings against A-4 and A-5 inCrime No.166 of 2009 on the file of Nagaram Palem Law and Orderpolice station, Guntur.

__________________________

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, JDated: 29-12-2011.Dsh.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

246

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8431 OF 2009

December, 29, 2011

DSH