This is a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that serious accusations of harassment, physical assault, and snatching of jewelry warranted continuation of investigation, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
CRL.P.No.375 of 2012
ORDER
This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A5 and A6 in Cr.No.132 of 2011 of Siddipet II Town Police Station, Medak District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to quash the proceedings therein.
A report came to be presented by Bachu Bhargavi on 14-12-2011 before the Inspector of Police, Siddipet, Medak District, alleging inter alia that she has been married to Vijay Kumar s/o Krishna Murty on 18-11-2010 at Sai Ram Function Hall, situate at Nehru Park and at the time of marriage, her mother has given Rs.2,80,000/- in cash, household articles and 8 tulas of gold to Vijay Kumar towards dowry. It is further stated in the report that after the marriage, she went to her in-laws house where she has been harassed by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-laws viz., Sandhya and Padma, on the ground that she is black in complex and she has to bring a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry. Basing on the said report, a case in Cr.No.132 of 2011 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act came to be registered by the Inspector of Police, Siddipet II Town Police Station. Hence, this petition by A5 and A6 seeking the prayer stated supra.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are no way concerned with the marital life of the de facto complainant with A1 and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
I have gone through the report presented by Bachu Bhargavi. It is stated in the report that the petitioners herein along with other accused harassed her on the ground of additional dowry. It is further stated in the report that the petitioners and other accused resorted to physical assaults and snatched gold pushtela tadu, two gold bangles, gold ring and gold ear studs weighing about 8 tulas from her person and necked her out from the marital home.
Such is the accusation levelled against the petitioners, the investigation in Cr.No.132 of 2011 cannot be interdicted.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J
rkk Dated: 20-1-2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed given the false implication of the petitioners.
Whether the investigation in Cr.No.132 of 2011 can be interdicted based on the allegations of harassment and dowry demands.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
A5 and A6
State of Andhra Pradesh
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
