Allowed

Sri Tarimala Chalapathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Nov 2022CRLP/2714/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the charge sheet against the third petitioner in a Section 498-A dowry case. The judgment held that the allegations were general and improbable given the petitioner's age, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance of the case is barred; charge sheet against 3rd petitioner quashed; relief also granted to petitioners 1 and 2.

Sri Tarimala Chalapathi, Vs The State of Andhra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2714 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.307 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

The petitioners have filed the present criminal petition for quashing the said charge sheet.

¶6

The allegations in the charge sheet are; that dowry was demanded and received by the petitioners along with accused No.1, at the time of the marriage solemnized on 20.04.2016; the de facto complaint/respondent No.2 was harassed and tortured by the petitioners on various occasions by referring to her fairness in colour and by complaining that further dowry should be given by the parents of the de facto complainant; the petitioners had supported accused No.1/husband, when the de facto complainant had found video call between accused No.1/husband and another lady and the de facto complainant was told to accept the extra marital affairs of the husband; the further demands for dowry were made when Srimantham function for the de facto complainant was to be held in 2018; the petitioners along with accused No.1/husband

¶7

¶8

came to the house of the de facto complainant on 29.12.2018 and raised a quarrel with the parents of the de facto complainant, asking for 1/3^rd share in the property of the parents of the de facto complainant, failing which they would take away the new born baby with them.

¶9

The petitioners contend that these allegations are general and omnibus allegations made against the petitioners and that the said allegations do not make out a case under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

¶10

Sri G.Ramesh Babu learned counsel, appearing for the de facto complainant/respondent No.2 would submit that the allegations are specific and clearly make out a case against the petitioners. He would submit that the veracity of these claims would have to be tested in a proper trial and the same cannot be raised by the petitioners before this Court exercising a jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet as well as the complaint given by the de facto complainant would show that there are no further allegations apart from the above allegations referred in this order. These allegations are general and omnibus allegations being made against the petitioners and more specifically the 3^rd petitioner herein.

¶12

¶13

In view of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand¹ and Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.,² the said allegations against the 3^rd petitioner would not clearly make out a case against the 3^rd petitioner. Further, the petitioners have produced the birth certificate of the 3^rd petitioner showing that the 3^rd petitioner was born in the year 2000 which would mean that she was when 16 years old, she is said to be demanded dowry from the parents of the de facto complainant and she was 18 years old when she is said to have harassed the de facto complainant for dowry. The version of the complaint against the 3^rd petitioner, sounds highly improbable.

¶14

For all these reasons, the C.C.No.307 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal is quashed against the 3^rd petitioner.

¶15

As far as petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, this Court, at the time of the admission of the petition had dispensed with the presence of the petitioners in the trial of the matter. It would suffice to give the same relief to the petitioners 1 and 2.

¶16

Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and quashing the C.C.No.307 of 2019 on the file of Judicial

¶17

1 (2010) 7 SCC 667

¶18

2 (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶19

¶20

Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal against the 3^rd petitioner and dispensing with the presence of the petitioners 1 and 2 in C.C.No.307 of 2019 except when their presence is necessary for examination or for any other mandatory purpose.

¶21

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶22

stand closed.

¶23

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶24

11.11.2022 RJS

¶25

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶27