AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.164 of 2008, on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Originally, A-1 to A-6 were charged for the offences stated above. A-4 to A-6 filed Crl.P.No.3086 of 2008 for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.164 of 2008, on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad. This court, by order dated 26.07.2011, quashed the proceedings against A-4 to A-6. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner/A-2 died on 08.01.2017 and death certificate to the said effect is filed.
The allegations in the charge sheet goes to show that a complaint was lodged by one Vasavi, who is said to be the wife of A-1, contending that her marriage with A-1 was performed on 13.05.2004 and at that time, A-1 was working in New Zealand. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and other articles were given. From fourth day of marriage, A-2 to A-6 demanded her parents that all the properties should be written in the name of A-1. A-1 did not take the complainant to New Zealand and finally she went to Auckland on 22.07.2005 and stayed there with A-1 and she also joined in a private firm and she was ill-treated by A-1. A-1 was having illegal contact with one lady by name Julie whom he married her earlier. A-1 subjected the complainant to mental torture. A-2 to A-6 harassed her for transfer of the properties in the name of A-1 and demanded additional dowry. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-6 for the above stated offences.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there are no specific allegations against A-2 and A-3 with regard to demand of additional dowry and the complainant had lived for a very short period with A-1 and she went to New Zealand and subsequently, she filed an application before the Family Court at Auckland seeking dissolution of marriage. The Family Court, by order dated 25.03.2009, dissolved the marriage between the complainant and A-1. Learned counsel further contended that during the pendency of the case, petitioner/A-2 died and there are no allegations about the demand of additional dowry or harassment and there are also no material allegations to attract the alleged offices. She prayed to allow the petition by the quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/A-3.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are material allegations against the petitioners for framing charges and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
A perusal of the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., reveal that there is no specific allegation to show that the complainant, who is wife of A-1, lived with the petitioners herein for a longer period. The marriage of the son (A-1) of the petitioners was held on 13.05.2004 and at that time he was working at Auckland in New Zealand. A-1 continued to live there even after the marriage. The complainant left for New Zealand on 22.07.2005 and joined the company of A-1. Later, she returned back to India and joined her parents on 27.08.2006 and lodged the complaint with police on 20.12.2006 making the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment and she again went back to New Zealand. Her statement itself is not at all satisfactory to show that the petitioners have ever demanded additional dowry or harassed her in order to attract the alleged offences. Further, it is borne out by the record that complainant filed an application before the Family Court at Auckland, New Zealand seeking dissolution of marriage, wherein both of them orally agreed to live separately and accordingly, the said Family Court granted a decree of divorce on 25.03.2009. Moreover, Since the petitioner/A-3 is none other than mother of A-1 and undisputedly A-1 and the complainant are residing at New Zealand since long time, the mother cannot be relegated to the ordeal of trial, without there being any specific allegations to proceed against her.
After taking into consideration the entire material facts of the case and on a careful perusal of the charge sheet, coupled with the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and also considering the fact that the proceedings against A-4 to A-6 were already quashed by this court, this court is of the prima facie view that there are no triable allegations to frame charges against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 for the offences alleged and continuation of the said proceedings against them would certainly lead to abuse of process of law and in order to meet the ends of justice, the proceedings against the petitioners have to be quashed.
In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioner/A-3 in C.C.No.164 of 2008, on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.