AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-8 in C.C.No.2758 of 2014 on the file of the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District (New C.C.No.400491 of 2014) on the file of II AJCJ-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District).
A private complaint was filed by the second respondent and the same was referred to the police who, in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.160 of 2014 of Balanagar Police Station, Cyberabad District and investigated and charge sheet was filed against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 406 and 386 IPC.
According to the allegations in the complaint, A-1 is the husband of the second respondent, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8 are in-laws and blood relatives of the second respondent respectively.
The second respondent alleged in the complaint that her marriage with A-1 was performed on 12.02.2012. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.8.00 lakhs by way of cash towards ‘pasupu kumkuma’ and gold ornaments weighing 130 grams and silver articles weighing 1000 grams apart from house hold articles to her husband and his family members on their demand. After the marriage, the second respondent joined the company of A-1 at her matrimonial house and living with him. The gold and silver ornaments were taken away by A-1 at the instigation of other accused i.e. A-2 to A-8 and at their instigation, he used to pick-up quarrel with the second respondent and started harassing her physically and mentally to bring additional dowry from her parents on the ground that dowry given is not sufficient. The accused persons also gave threat to the second respondent that if she does not fulfill their demand, A-1 would get another marriage. It is also alleged that before the marriage, A-1 gave false information that he is a government job holder. It is alleged that A-1 had illicit intimacy with other women since the marriage. A-1 and other accused colluded and used to beat the second respondent. At the instigation of A-2 to A-8, A-1 was trying for another marriage. It is further alleged that the accused persons subjected the second respondent to harassment physically and mentally for additional dowry and driven out from the house on 02.06.2013.
Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. None represented respondent No.1 inspite of service of notice. Perused the material record.
Apart from submitting oral arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed written arguments. It is submitted that the allegations in the complaint prima facie do not attract any of the offences alleged. Except making bald and vague allegations against the petitioners in the complaint that they instigated A-1 in demand of additional dowry, there are no specific allegations prima facie attracting any of the ingredients of the offences alleged.
In the written arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has also mentioned that the C.C.No.2758 of 2014 is renumbered as C.C.No.400491 of 2014 on the file of II AJCJ-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.
A perusal of the allegations of the charge-sheet and the complaint would reveal that general allegations are levelled against the petitioners herein. It is alleged that at the instigation of the petitioners/A-2 to A-8, A-1 demanded for additional dowry and also alleged that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 threatened for additional dowry. It is also alleged that the petitioners were trying to perform another marriage to A-1. Except making the said allegations, there is no specific role in furtherance of general allegations leveled against the petitioners. The allegations are general and omnibus without there being any iota of prima facie evidence in the statement of witnesses to attract the offences alleged against the petitioners.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Subba Rao v. the State of Telangana (2018)14 SCC 452 observed that “the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”
The above mentioned decision clearly demonstrate that the Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed concern over the misuse of 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes and against false implication by way of general and omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes.
Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners in furtherance of general allegations made against them, it would be unjust if there will be continuation of proceedings and it would amount to unnecessarily forcing them to undergo the rigor of trial and amounts to abuse of process of law.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and after considering material record, this Court is of the view that it is 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-8.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-8 in C.C.No.2758 of 2014, on the file of the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District (New C.C.No.400491 of 2014) on the file of II AJCJ-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District) , are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.