Allowed

Smt. a. Surya Kumari, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC7 Dec 2011CRLP/5628/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Petition No.5628 of 2008, the Court allowed the petition and quashed proceedings under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioner-accused No.2. The Court found that allegations of dowry harassment were directed solely at the husband, and while the petitioner was accused of verbal harassment, the evidence did not attract Section 498-A.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.672 of 2007 are quashed so far as the petitioner-accused No.2 is concerned.

Smt. a. Surya Kumari, Vs The State of A.P. — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.5628 of 2008

¶3

Date: 07-12-2011

¶4

Between

¶5

Smt. A.Surya Kumari and The State of A.P., Through L.B.Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad

¶6

… Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶7

… Respondent

¶8

Smt. Rani Sunila Rani

¶9

… Respondent/De facto Complainant

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

Criminal Petition No.5628 of 2008

¶12

Order:

¶13

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.148 of 2007 on the file of L.B.Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad, which is numbered as C.C.672 of 2007 before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar.

¶14

2. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the aforesaid C.C. She has filed a complaint before the Police on 14-11-2006 stating that she is married to accused No.1 on 14-8-2005 at Annavaram Temple, East Godavari district. She is having 3 sisters-in-law and 2 brothers-in-law. Her sisters-in-law and mother-inlaw are residing at Hyderabad. It is stated that after her marriage, her mother-in-law stayed with them for 6 months. During the said time, some

¶15

misunderstandings developed. In the complaint, it is stated that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.50,000/- was given and her father spent about Rs.1,50,000/- towards marriage expenses. It is stated that her husband-accused No.1, sisters-in-law and their husbands were satisfied with the expenses made at the time of marriage. In the complaint it is alleged that at the instance of her mother-in-law, accused No.1-husband of the de facto complainant is harassing her physically and mentally, demanding to bring additional dowry and he also threatened to divorce her. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is alleged in the complaint that her sisters-in-law and mother-in-law were harassing her both mentally and physically, complaining that her structure is very bad and that she is having big teats and stout.

¶16

3. Based on the complaint of the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.148 of 2007 was registered against her husband and sisters-in-law on the file of L.B.Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad, for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and after completing the investigation, a final report is filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C charging the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C along with her brother. In the final report, the petitioner is shown as accused No.2. Based on the final report, the case is numbered as C.C.672 of 2007 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar.

¶17

4. In this criminal petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 that no case is made out against the petitioner to proceed with the trial for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. It is submitted that even reading the contents of the complaint as it is, it will not attract any offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and in that view of the matter, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶18

5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State and the learned

¶19

counsel for the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant that the petitioner is the sister-in-law of accused No.1 and she was harassing the de facto complainant along with her brother. In that view of the matter, it is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the proceedings.

¶20

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the F.I.R., and also the final report.

¶21

7. Insofar as the investigation is concerned, the de facto complainant, her parents and other witnesses were examined. As per the contents of the final report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., it is stated that the de facto complainant got married to accused No.1 on 14-8-2006 and at the time of their marriage, her parents had given 8 tolas of gold ornaments, Rs.50,000/- net cash as dowry and they have incurred marriage expenses of Rs.1,50,000/-. After the marriage, she joined her husband at Hyderabad, where her sisters-in-law and motherin-law started harassing her both mentally and physically stating that she is not good looking and is having big teats and stout. The specific complaint alleged against the husband is that he is an alcoholic and is threatening the de facto complainant with dire consequences.

¶22

8. Though there is allegation of demand for dowry and harassment on that count, from the contents of the final report, it is clear that such accusation is only against the husband but not against the petitioner, who is accused No.2. So far as the allegation against the petitioner is concerned, she was harassing the de facto complainant mentally and physically along with her brother alleging that she is not good looking and is having big teats and stout. Taking the allegations as it is, there is no allegation of harassment for bringing additional dowry as complained by the 2^nd respondent as per the final report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is to be noticed that the petitioner-accused No.2 is sister-in-law and she is married and is not staying with her mother. In that view of the

¶23

matter, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings so far as the petitioner-accused No.2 is concerned.

¶24

9. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is allowed at the stage of admission and the proceedings in C.C.No.672 of 2007 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, are quashed so far as the petitioner-accused No.2 is concerned.

¶25

_______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.

¶26

07^th December, 2011. Ak

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶28

Criminal Petition No.5628 of 2008

¶29

07^th December, 2011. (Ak)

Smt. a. Surya Kumari, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. a. Surya Kumari, v. The State of A.P.

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

Chennuboina Chittibabu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Yadava Rao, Vs The Commissioner

Abbisetti Sattiraju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

Dr.K.Rama Devi, Vs The State of A.P.

Komari Venkateswhwarlu, Vs Moole Dasharatham

Kaluvakolanu Venkata Naga Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh