D. Rama Devi, Krishna Dt 2 Others vs D. Hemasri, HYD Anr

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in C.C.No.4153 of 2013, on the file of the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 to A-4, learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the second respondent/State.

A private complaint was filed by the first respondent and the same was referred to the police who, in turn, registered a case against the petitioners herein and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 107 and 120-B IPC.

A-2 is the mother-in-law, A-3 is the brother-in-law and A-4 is the sister-in-law of the first respondent. A-1 is the husband of the first respondent.

The first respondent alleged in the complaint that her marriage with A-1 was performed on 22.02.2008 at Shiridi. At the time of marriage, A-2 demanded dowry of Rs.40 lakhs, 400 gms gold, but the parents of first respondent agreed to give Rs.30 lakhs and 400 gms gold. Subsequently, A-2 started demanding for additional dowry. A-1 alone left for Newzealand on 15.03.2008. A-1 demanded Rs.10 lakhs towards additional dowry from her. The first respondent gave a complaint before police and the same was registered as Cr.No.683 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A-1 filed F.C.O.P.No.79 of 2009 before the learned Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada seeking divorce, wherein an ex parte divorce was granted in favour of A-1. Later, the first respondent filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte order and decree. She also filed an application to condone the delay of 239 days in filing the application for setting aside ex parte order. It is further alleged that A-1 married one Sirisha on instigation of A-1 to A-4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations in the complaint prima facie do not attract any of the offences alleged. Except making bald, vague and unspecific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint, there are no specific allegations prima facie attracting any of the ingredients of the offences alleged. Learned counsel further contends that in the complaint it is alleged that marriage of A-1 with one Sirisha was held and they have one child out of the said marriage. There is no mention as to the place, date and time of the said marriage anywhere in the complaint. Learned counsel further contends that there should be sapthapathi and homam which are essential for a marriage, according to the law governing the parties and there is no allegation regarding performance of the said two essential ceremonies to show that marriage of A-1 was held with one Sirisha and that A-2 to A-4 have abetted the said marriage of A-1. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court:

i. SHAFIYA KHAN @ SHAKUNTALA PRAJAPATI v. STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER 2022 SCC OnLine SC 167.

ii. SMT.PRIYA BALA GHOSH v. SURESH CHANDA GHOSH 1971(1) SCC 864

iii. MUSSTT REHANA BEGUM v. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER 2022 SCC OnLine SC 82.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent contends that there are prima facie ingredients attracting the offences alleged against the petitioners. The learned counsel contends that it is the petitioners who have played fraud on the court and tried to obtain an ex parte decree of divorce. Petitioners herein abetted A-1 and got performed the second marriage of A-1 with one Sirisha and that A-1 is living with her and they have a child. She prays for dismissal of the criminal petition while subjecting the petitioners to raise all the issues before the trial court at the time of trial.

In SHAFIYA KHAN’s case (1 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraphs 19 and 20 held as under:

“Although it is true that it was not open for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR, but at least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR which is completely missing in the present case and documentary evidence on record clearly supports that her Nikah Nama was duly registered and issued by competent authority and even the charge sheet filed against her does not prima facie discloses how the marriage certificate was forged.

In the given circumstances and going through the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered and other material placed on record, we are of the considered view that no offence of any kind as has been alleged in the FIR, has been made out against the appellant and if we allow the criminal proceedings to continue, it will be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law and will be a mental trauma to the appellant which has been completely overlooked by the High Court while dismissing the petition filed at her instance under Section 482 Cr.PC”.

Adverting to the facts of the present case, no material is placed by the complainant in her complaint to justify the allegation of second marriage of A-1 with one Sirisha, except making a bald allegation that A-1 married one Sirisha and begot a child. Apart from this, there is no factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the complaint.

It is also pertinent to note that the marriage of the first respondent and A-1 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar by order dated 15.06.2018 in F.C.O.P.No.241 of 2015. The first respondent also filed a complaint with police against her husband (A-1) and petitioners/A-2 and A-3 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A-1 and petitioners/A-2 and A-3 for the above said offences and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.1020 of 2011, on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at Miyapur and after full-fledged trial, the case ended in acquittal of petitioners on 31.07.2007. The first respondent also filed domestic violence case i.e., D.V.C.No.96 of 2013 before the learned II-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at Miyapur against A-1 and petitioners/A-2 and A-3 and same was also dismissed by order dated 30.12.2014.

A perusal of the copies of the orders in the above stated cases shows the attitude of the first respondent in filing cases after cases against A-1 and petitioners/A-2 and A-3 only with a view to harassing them and in all the cases, the petitioners were unnecessarily roped in with an oblique motive. Apart from the above and as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no mention as to the place, date and time of the second marriage of A-1 with one Sirisha anywhere in the complaint. Except making bald, vague and unspecific allegations against the petitioners, there are no specific allegations in the complaint to justify prima facie case attracting the offences alleged. Moreover, the two essential ceremonies like sapthapathi and homam which are essential for a marriage are also missing in the complaint.

In the circumstances, it is considered that continuance of further proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in C.C.No.4153 of 2013, on the file of the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District would only be an abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4.

The criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in C.C.No.4153 of 2013, on the file of the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.