Allowed

Mokilla Damodar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Jan 2011CRLP/4730/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed further criminal proceedings against the petitioners (brother, wife, sister-in-law, brother-in-law of husband) based on omnibus allegations of dowry harassment. Finding no specific incriminating material and relying on the Supreme Court's position against arraying relatives without specific acts, the Court held continued proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in C.C.No.286 of 2009 against petitioners-A2 to A5 are quashed.

Mokilla Damodar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4730 OF 2009

¶3

DATED:20-01-2011

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners-A2 to A5 in C.C.No.286 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District.

¶6

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent-complainant. Perused the records.

¶7

3. On a complaint given by the 2^nd respondent, police registered a case in Cr.No.401 of 2009 against A1 and the petitioners-A2 to A5 for the offences under

¶8

Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.286 of 2009. Petitioners-A2 to A5 would contend that further proceedings against them are unwarranted as no specific allegations have been made against them, either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. 1^st petitioner-A2 is the brother of the husband of the 2^nd respondent; 2^nd petitioner-A3 is the wife of A2; 4^th petitioner-A5 is the sister of the husband of the 2^nd

¶9

respondent; 3^rd petitioner-A4 is the husband of A5 and A1 is the husband of the 2^nd respondent-complainant. According to the complainant, the marriage of A1 took place in 1995 and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.6,50,000/- towards ‘pasupukumkuma’ and the said amount was utilized by A1 for his personal benefit. The complainant alleges that thirteen years after the marriage, in the year, 2008, the accused started harassing her mentally and physically demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. While so, two children were born. In the complaint and also in the charge sheet, an omnibus allegation is made against the petitioners-A2 to A5 that they also harassed the complainant along with A1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and sending her out of the house and refusing to take her back unless the demand for additional dowry is met with. The complaint and the charge sheet do not contain any specific allegation against the petitioners-A2 to A5 with reference to any event or incident. No specific overt act is also attributed against the petitioners-A2 to A5 in the context of the alleged harassment for additional dowry. No doubt, the names of the petitioners-A2 to A5 are mentioned in the First Information Report and also in the charge sheet. However, in the absence of any specific allegation or specific overt act against them, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the alleged offences are attracted, at least prima facie. Th e omnibus allegation made against the petitioners-A2 to A5 in general terms to the effect that they also harassed the complainant along

¶10

with A1, would not suffice nor does it constitute a justifiable basis for proceeding further against the petitioners. It is not disputed that the petitioners-A2 to A5 are living at different places and away from the matrimonial home of the complainant.

¶11

4. In a catena of decisions, the apex Court has deprecated the practice of arraying all the family members of the matrimonial home as accused, especially in the absence of any specific allegation and by making only omnibus allegations.

¶12

5. In a recent decision, in PREETI GUPTA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER^[1] , the apex Court held as follows:

¶13

35. “The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculeantask in a majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and

¶14

never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant wife resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

¶15

36.

¶16

Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful”.

¶17

6. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision, which are applicable to the facts of the present case and having regard to the fact that only omnibus allegation, in general terms, is made against the petitioners-A2 to A5 and there being no specific incriminating material against them, attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence, even prima facie, it is held that further proceedings against the petitioners-A2 to A5 in C.C.No.286 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District, are unwarranted and continuance of the said proceedings would only amount to abuse of

¶18

process of law. It is therefore considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the further proceedings against the petitioners-A2 to A5 in C.C.No.286 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District, and they are accordingly quashed.

¶19

7. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶20

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶21

20^th January, 2011 Tsy

¶22

[1] (2010) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 667

Mokilla Damodar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mokilla Damodar Reddy, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karna Ramamohana rao Vs Boddu Ratnamba

Pambala Erraiah Vs Vemisetti Raghavender

Kandirelli Srihari Rao Vs Kandirelli Kesavardhan Rao

K.Chandrasekhar Rao, Vs State of A.P.

Smt. Tanakanti Lakshmidevi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Gousepeer, Vs The State of A.P.