Elugeti Dasharatham vs State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A4 in CC No.10390 of 2021 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

The   petitioners   are   the   in-laws   of   the   2nd respondent/defacto complainant. The 1st petitioner is the father-in-law, 2nd petitioner is the mother-in-law, 3rd petitioner is the sister-in-law. It is stated by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in her complaint and also during her examination before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C statement that she was married to A1 on 24.03.2019. Dowry was given at the time of marriage and also aadapaduchu katnam (customary gift to sister-in-law) to 3rd petitioner. On 28.03.2019, A1 left to UK by leaving the 2nd respondent in her parents house at Chilkalguda. On 06.04.2019, her father-in-law took her to Warangal, where she stayed up to 18th April, 2019. The parents-in-law used to torture mentally stating that less dowry was given. Thereafter, A1 sent documents for visa processing, as such the 2nd respondent and her parents-in-law went to Chennai and spent an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. However, the parents-in-law did not help. Rs.5.00 lakh FD which was in the name of the 2nd respondent was encashed and cash was given to the 1st petitioner. An amount of Rs.5.00 lakh cash was also given to the 2nd respondent. On 20.06.2019, the 2nd respondent went to UK where, according to her, she was given un-prescribed medicine and also A1 harassed her sexually, for which reason, her health deteriorated. Further, several allegations of physical and mental violence are alleged against the husband while staying in UK. On 30.04.2020, A1 after speaking to the 1st petitioner physically assaulted the 2nd respondent. A1 purchased house in the UK, however, demanded amounts from his in-laws. On 30.09.2020, the 2nd respondent alone came to India and later on 16.11.2020, A1 also came to Warangal and held panchayat in the house of 2nd respondent on 28.11.2020. The 3rd petitioner and another sister-in-law insulted saying that she can live without sex, after questioning about intimate relation between A1 and 2nd respondent. Later, A1 left to UK. On 17.03.2021, divorce notice was sent, for which reason, the 2nd respondent approached Woman Police Station on 29.04.2021 and lodged the complaint.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent was having health issues, which were not revealed at the time of marriage and on account of abnormal behaviour, A1 suffered trauma and the entire family had to face problems with the 2nd respondent. Though petitioners never stayed with the 2nd respondent, false allegations are made only to implicate her in-laws and sister-in-law. No dowry or aadapadachu katnam was given and false complaint was made only for the reason of A1 filing divorce application, which was pending adjudication as FCOP No.347 of 2021 before the Family Court at L.B.Nagar. The said divorce petition was filed on ground of cruelty and two months thereafter, the criminal complaint was filed.

On the other hand, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it was argued that there were several allegations levelled against the petitioners which can only be decided during the course of trial. Unless an opportunity is given to the prosecution witnesses to establish the guilt of the petitioners, at the threshold, the complaint cannot be quashed.

Having gone through the record, the 2nd respondent had stayed along with the 1st and 2nd petitioners/parents-in-law at Warangal very briefly for five days or one week. Most of the time, she was in the UK along with her husband. According to the defacto complainant, petitioners were harassing her mentally stating that A1 would have got more dowry if he was married to someone else. Twice amount of 5 lakhs was given to the 1st and 2nd petitioners.

Admittedly, the complaint was filed two months after A1 issued notice and filed divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty, which was pending before the Family Court. Several allegations were made regarding the 2nd respondent’s behaviour, which according to A1 amounted to cruelty, for which reason, urged the court to grant divorce.

As far as the petitioners are concerned, as already stated, the 2nd respondent never stayed with her parents-in-law/1st and 2nd petitioners continuously. However, she stayed for one or two weeks. Only allegations are that the parents-in-law had taken money, which the 2nd respondent provided encashing the FD and also that A1 would have get more dowry if married to someone else. Further, at the instance of parents-in-law, A1 also assaulted her in UK. Phone call conversation was in between A1 and his parents. What transpired in the said conversation, admittedly, is not known to the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. However, she states that the parents-in-law were instigating A1. In the absence of any specific allegations which are levelled against these petitioners and the allegations made, appear to be more general in nature, proceedings cannot continue against petitioners. Further, the 2nd respondent never stayed continuously with the petitioners at any point of time.

In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband’s relatives who were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.

Considering the allegations which are made against these petitioners, which are general and assumptive in nature, this Court finds that permitting the petitioners to undergo criminal trial on the basis of such assumptive evidence would only amount to permitting the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant prosecuting the petitioners without any evidence.

In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A4 in CC No.10390 of 2021 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.