Dismissed

Pothikuchi Hanumantha Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Sept 2022CRLP/3241/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner for dowry harassment and related offences, holding that the allegations are disputed questions of fact requiring trial and the petitioner's absence does not invalidate the case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; proceedings in C.C.No.1487 of 2018 are not quashed.

Pothikuchi Hanumantha Srinivas Vs The State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3241 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1487 of 2018 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶4

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the de facto complainant and the petitioner was performed on 11.03.2011. At the time of marriage, the parents of the de facto complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the bank account and also gave an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by hand towards dowry and also gave an amount of Rs.60,000/towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam and gold ring. Later, she joined her husband to lead matrimonial life at Secunderabad.

¶5

¶6

Thereafter, petitioner shifted his family to Tirupathi and sister in law of the petitioner used to visit the plot of the

¶7

petitioner and used to spend with the de facto complainant till late in the night and due to the same they lost their privacy. It is alleged that petitioner took the de facto complainant to Dr.Lakshmi in the month of May and the Doctor advised to bring her in the month of August since she completed two months pregnancy. In the month of August, petitioner took de facto complainant to the said Doctor and she informed that she was suffering with Fibroid and it is not hurdle for the pregnancy. Later, petitioner harassed the de facto complainant and put her to mental torture and informed her to leave him and to go to Kakinada. Later, petitioner had taken her to Dr.Kameswari on 22.09.2011 and she confirmed the pregnancy of de facto complainant and to come in the month of October, 2011. On 03.10.2011, de facto complainant was taken to the same Doctor and she informed that there is insufficient growth to the infant and advised to get abortion after ten days. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

demanded the de facto complainant to subscribe her signature on paper for divorce and petitioner further proclaimed that the dowry given is not sufficient and demanded to bring additional dowry from her father and if she failed to do so, he would discard her. But, they did not agree as the father of the de facto complainant is not able to afford money. Later, the petitioner sent the de facto complainant to Kakinada forcibly. On 17.10.2011, de facto complainant got aborted her pregnancy under their family Doctor Ramadevi and informed the same to the petitioner and the health condition to him over phone, and when asked for conducting of Fibroids operation, he rejected and postponed the issue and he did not give any reply to the phone calls of her. On that, on 08.01.2012, the relatives of de facto complainant met the petitioner at Hyderabad and informed them to bring the de facto complainant to their home, for which, they did not agree and demanded for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and sent them out of his plot. On 29.01.2012, de facto complainant along with her mother

¶10

¶11

went to their plot, where they resided previously and came to know that petitioner vacated the plot and his whereabouts are not known. On that, they went to the office of the petitioner but in vain. Later, the petitioner issued a legal notice through his advocate demanding for divorce. Basing on the report of the de facto complainant, police registered a case in Cr.No.221 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet and deleted the names of A2 to A4 in the case on the ground that there are no averments stated in the complaint made by the de facto complainant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even accepting entire accusations contained in the charge sheet to be true, no offence under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are attracted for the reason that there are no specific accusations against the

¶13

¶14

petitioner herein. He also submitted that earlier, O.P.No.13 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner on the file of the learned Additional Family Court Judge, Hyderabad for divorce. Despite the fact that she received notice, she did not respond to the same. The de facto complainant did not contest the case and she was set ex parte and order has been passed to that extent allowing the petition on 31.08.2016 in F.C.O.P.No.13 of 2016.

¶15

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice has been issued to 3^rd respondent in the present Criminal Petition. Though the notice has been served on 3^rd respondent, none appeared on behalf of 3^rd respondent. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the accusations contained in the charge sheet are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be decided in the course of trial.

¶16

Heard. Perused the record.

¶17

On perusal of the charge sheet goes to show

¶18

that there are accusations made against the petitioner

¶19

¶20

herein that he demanded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as additional dowry. There is an accusation that when the de facto complainant had gone office and residential address of the petitioner, he did not to there. There are accusations that the petitioner harassed the de facto complainant and put her in mental torture and sent her to Kakinada.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that de facto complainant has not contested either in the case filed by the petitioner in respect of F.C.O.P.No.13 of 2016. This Court is not in a position to accept the said contentions because, the de facto complainant did not contested in F.C.O.P.No.13 of 2016 and it does not mean that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner herein. It goes to show that she has no interest in the petitioner. There are clear allegations that have been made to that extent that the complaint filed by her stating that she has gone to the office address of the petitioner to find him and came to know that the

¶22

¶23

petitioner has not given his residential address in the office.

¶24

At this Stage of proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court has to look into the contents contained in the First Information Report, 161 Cr.P.C. statement and the charge sheet. Going by the accusations contained in the charge sheet, prima facie , there are allegations against the petitioner that he harassed the de facto complainant. Truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided in the course of trial and this Court is not in a position to conduct roving enquiry into the disputed question of facts.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶26

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶27

Date: 07.09.2022 KLPD

¶28

_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶29

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶31

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3241 of 2020

¶32

Date:07.09.2022

¶33

KLPD

Pothikuchi Hanumantha Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pothikuchi Hanumantha Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P Umamaheshwara Reddy Vs State of Ap

G.v.Naga Durga Prasad Vs P.Rami Reddy

Rayala Raja Rao Vs T.Nageswara Rao

B.Papa Rao Vs B.Bastanamma Chitti

Sri Kotamreddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddi Appala Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh