Dismissed

Yerramreddy Chandra Shekar Reddy v. The State of a.P., through SHO

Telangana HC2 Feb 2012CRLP/3912/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by a husband and relatives seeking to quash domestic violence proceedings against them for dowry harassment. The Court held that since the respondents fall within the definition of 'domestic relationship' and the reliefs sought were specific, the proceedings could not be quashed. The interim order previously granted was v

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.3912 of 2011 dismissed; interim order dated 10-6-2011 vacated.

Yerramreddy Chandra Shekar Reddy Vs The State of a.P… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.3912 of 2011

¶3

(Dated : 02-02-2012)

¶4

Between:

¶5

Yerramreddy Chandra Shekar Reddy and others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

A n d

¶8

State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and another

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶11

Criminal Petition No.3912 of 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the respondents in D.V.C.No.3 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal to quash the proceedings therein.

¶14

2. Facts, in brief, are:-

¶15

The 2^nd respondent is the wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 is the maternal uncle, petitioner No.3 is the maternal aunt, petitioner No.4 is the mother, petitioners 5 and 6 are the sisters and petitioner No.7 is the brother-in-law of petitioner No.1. The 2^nd respondent was married to petitioner No.1 on 4-6-2003 at Kalyani Function Hall, Hanamkonda and it was an arranged marriage. The mother and the elder sister of the 2^nd respondent gave cash of Rs.13,25,000/-, gold ornaments worth of Rs.2,00,000/- and fixed deposits worth Rs.8,00,000/- at the time of marriage as dowry. The 2^nd respondent joined the petitioner No.1 for marital life. The petitioners 1 to 7 coerced her to withdraw the fixed deposit amount and they even abused her on that score. She succumbed to their pressure and withdrew Rs.4 lakhs and handed over the same to petitioner No.1 in the presence of petitioners 2 to 7. Her marital life went on smoothly for a period of a week and thereafter, the petitioners insisted her to withdraw the remaining amount also. Apart from insisting withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount, they demanded additional dowry of

¶16

Rs.5 lakhs. The request made by her mother and sister to the petitioners not to harass her did not yield any fruitful result. The petitioners disposed of the residential house situated at Miryalaguda and handed over the entire sale consideration to petitioner No.6 at the time of her marriage. After disposing of the house at Miryalaguda, petitioners 1 to 7 shifted their residence to Hyderabad. She was able to secure the address of the petitioners with great difficulty and place the matter before the elders, namely, Parupati Hemalatha, Kasam Ramchandra Reddy and Parupati Ram Reddy. The petitioners appeared before the elders and on admonition of the elders, the petitioners took her to L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and treated her cordially for two months. Thereafter, the petitioners harassed her mentally and physically with a demand to withdraw the remaining fixed deposit amount and to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. She, being not able to put up with the harassment, came out from the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. Hence, she filed D.V.C.No.3 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal against the petitioners herein seeking maintenance and other ancillary reliefs. The relevant portion of the relief (prayer) sought for in D.V.C.3 of 2011 reads as hereunder:-

¶17

“ It is therefore prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass order or orders, take cognizance of perpetrated offences and issue directions to Respondents in the following manner:-

¶18

a) Respondent No.1 may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) per month to the petitioner from the date of petition towards her maintenance.

¶19

b) Respondent No.1 may be directed to provide alternate accommodation to the petitioner by paying rent at rate of

¶20

Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) per month.

¶21

c) Respondents No.1 to 7 may be directed to return the dowry amount net cash of Rs.13,25,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Five thousand only) and the Gold Ornaments of the petitioner presented by her parents at the time of the marriage to the petitioner.

¶22

d) Respondent No.1 to 7 may be directed not to harass the petitioner in future and the Respondent No.2 to 7 may be directed not to interfere in the personal life of the Respondent No.1 & the petitioner.

¶23

e) The Respondent No.1 to 7 may be directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards compensation for causing physical, mental and emotional harassment.

¶24

f) Any such order or orders may also be passed in the interest of justice”.

¶25

Hence, this petition by the respondents in the DVC 3 of 2011 to quash the proceedings therein.

¶26

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners 2 to 7 are in no way responsible for disruption in the marital life of the 2^nd respondent and there is no obligation on their part to pay any compensation for the alleged physical, mental and emotional harassment in her marital life. A further contention has been made that the petitioners 2 to 7 cannot be stated to have any domestic relationship with the 2^nd respondent, in which case, the very petition filed by the 2^nd respondent under the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Act”, for brevity) against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

¶28

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submits that the dowry amount paid by her mother and elder sister at the time of marriage has been mis-appropriated by the petitioners and therefore, they are under an obligation to return the dowry amount. A further submission has been made that the petitioners harassed the 2^nd respondent on the ground of additional dowry and she quantified the mental suffering underwent by her at Rs.5 lakhs, which the petitioners are liable to pay as compensation.

¶29

6. The relationship between the petitioners interse as stated by the 2^nd respondent in her petition under Section 12 of the Act is not in dispute. Section 2(f) of the Act defines “domestic relationship” and it reads as hereunder:-

¶30

“domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family”.

¶31

7. The 2^nd respondent in her petition under Section 12 of the Act stated that the petitioners herein lived together at Miryalaguda and subsequently, they disposed of the residential house at Miryalaguda for payment of dowry to petitioner No.6. It was also mentioned in the petition that she was harassed by all the petitioners to withdraw the FDR amount and she was subjected to physical and mental harassment. Section (22) of the Act deals with “compensation orders” and it reads as hereunder:-

¶32

22.Compensation orders.—In addition to other reliefs as may be granted under this Act, the Magistrate may on an application being made by the aggrieved person, pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts

¶33

of domestic violence committed by that respondent.”

¶34

This Section lays down that in additional to other reliefs which may be granted under the Act, the Magistrate may, on an application by the aggrieved person, pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation or damages or both to the aggrieved person for the injuries including for the mental torture and emotional distress caused to her by domestic violence by the respondent.

¶35

8. The 2^nd respondent has specifically stated in her petition that she has been harassed mentally and physically by the petitioners herein and therefore, she sought direction to them to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation. The relief sought for by her in her petition is specific and there is no ambiguity. She claimed maintenance against the 1^st petitioner herein who is her husband and return of dowry amount from the petitioners 1 to 7. She also sought a direction to petitioners 1 to 7 to pay compensation to her. When the petitioners come within the meaning of “domestic relationship” and the relief sought for against them is specific, proceedings in DVC 3 of 2011 cannot be quashed.

¶36

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to it, interim order granted on 10-6-2011 shall stand vacated.

¶37

_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY ,J

¶38

Dt.02-02-2012 RAR

Yerramreddy Chandra Shekar Reddy v. The State of a.P., through SHO

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yerramreddy Chandra Shekar Reddy v. The State of a.P., through SHO

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

Papana Balaraju , Balu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Medida Malyadri, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E.Srinivas Vs Smt. M.Vijaya Kumari

Nagarajan Lakshmanan Vs The State of a.P., through Sho.

M.Surya Narayana Vs The state of Ap.,through Sho,Kphb Colony P.S.

Vanga Sunil Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh