Allowed

Smt. Qamarunnisa Begum v. The State of Ap., Rep.by its

Telangana HC27 Sept 2012CRLP/489/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against the accused husband's relatives. Finding the case to be an abuse of process of law due to false allegations, lack of prima facie material, and contradictory residence details, the proceedings were quashed regarding those specific accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.741 of 2011 were quashed so far as A-2 to A-7 are concerned.

Smt. Qamarunnisa Begum Vs The State of Ap., Rep.by its — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No. 489 OF 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.741 of 2011 (C.C.) on the file of the Court of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

¶4

2. Whereas the petitioners herein are A-2 to A-7, the respondent herein is the State representing the defacto complainant in the C.C. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the C.C.

¶5

3. It is necessary to note briefly the allegations/pleadings made in the complaint for proper appreciation of the matter, they are as follows:

¶6

The defacto complainant is the wife of A-1. A-2 is the mother, A-3 is the father, A-4 and A-5 are the sisters, A-6 and A-7 are the brothers-in-law of A-1. The marriage of the defacto complainant and A-1 was performed on 30-07-2005 at Meridian Function Hall, Malapet, Hyderabad. Then presented a deferred dower of Rs.30,000/- as per the Muslim customs and rites.

¶7

At that time, the parents of the defacto complainant also agreed to pay dowry of Rs.7,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid apart from giving 20 tulas of gold articles as jahez articles worth Rs.3,00,000/- to A-1, and promised to pay the balance dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/- later. After the marriage the defacto complainant joined A-1 and lead marital life happily for sometime. Later A-1 to A-7 started passing sarcastic remarks against the defacto complainant stating that the jahez articles brought by her were of

¶8

sub-standard and good dowry amount was not given to them and if A-1 would have married another girl, they were sure to get handsome

¶9

dowry following which in August, 2005 they started demanding her to pay the remaining dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the defacto complainant informed to their parents about the demand made by A-1 to A-7, they transferred Rs.5,00,000/- to the account of the defacto complainant to pay the same to A-1 to A-7 in consequence of which the defacto complainant issued a cheque to the accused by which they purchased 200 square yards of land in the name of A-1. Further when the defacto complainant became pregnant, A-2 to A-7 harassed her mentally and physically and demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.8,00,000/- from her parents for the construction of house in the land purchased in the name of A-1 but as she refused to do so, they had not even provided proper food to her and on the other hand A-2 tried to kill her by opening gas nozzle while she was cooking. After the delivery also they did not come to see the newly born baby expressing that unless their demand was met, they would not come to see the child. Further on 22-05-2011 A-1 to A-7 reiterated their demand to bring the additional dowry of Rs.8,00,000/- but when she expressed her parents’ inability to meet their demand, they got annoyed, abused her in filthy language, beat her mercilessly and necked her out of their house along with the child by reason of which she went to her parents’ house following which on 27-05-2011 all the accused came to her parents’ house, reiterated their demand for bringing the additional dowry, picked up quarrel with her and her parents, threatened that if their demand was not met, A-1 would pronounce divorce to her and sell her jahez articles. It is claimed that all the jahez articles, gold ornaments etc. of the defacto complainant are in the custody of A-1 to A-7 and they never allowed her to use those articles. It is further claimed that though the parents of the defacto complainant and other elders made efforts to pacify the matter, A-1 to A-7 did not heed their words, whereas on the other hand reiterated their demand for additional dowry of Rs.8,00,000/- and further threatened that unless their demand was met, they would not allow the defacto complainant into their

¶10

house. Therefore, all the accused are liable for prosecution and punishment for the alleged offences.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for A-2 to A-7 would contend that only bald allegations are made against A-2 to A-7 which prima facie proves that this is a false case by reason of which the prosecution of A-2 to A- 7 is nothing but abuse of the process of law and therefore, the proceedings so far as they are concerned are to be quashed.

¶12

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.

¶13

6. In order to prosecute A-2 to A-7 in the case, there should b e prima facie material to do so. In fact omnibus allegations were made against A-2 to A-7 with regards to the harassment of the defacto complainant in the case. Such omnibus allegations without substance whatever may be their volume are not suffice to take cognizance of the case either at the time of presenting the private complaint or registering the case by the police or filing charge sheet ultimately. It is very easy to make omnibus allegations against anybody with regards to a criminal charge whereas the cognizance of the case can be taken only subject to satisfying that prima facie case is made out for necessary prosecution of those concerned. What is emphatical is that all the family members of A-1 in the case including the mother, father, sisters and brothers-in-law have been implicated in this case. As per the record, the ages of A-4 and A-5 (sisters of A-1), and A-6 and A-7 (brothers-in-law of A-1) have been given as 40, 41, 50 and 50 years respectively whereby it must be that they got married long ago and accordingly they have been living at different places respectively. But quite surprisingly in the charge sheet all of them are shown as the residents of one place at Khairatabad, Hyderabad whereas in the complaint they are shown as residents of Nizamabad and Secunderabad respectively. It appears that for the purpose of the case they are shown as the residents of one place. These circumstances are prima facie sufficient to hold that false allegations of harassment of

¶14

the defacto complainant have been made against A-2 to A-7 just for the purpose of this case. Further there is no record with regards to paying dowry at the time of marriage.

¶15

7. It is needless to say that in a case of this nature relatives of husbands are being roped in for the purpose of harassing all of them for a definite purpose. In fact Section 498-A IPC is being highly misused as a result of which the system of marriage is being destroyed. Marriage is meant for peace and tranquility among two spouses and their close relatives. If the system of marriage is destroyed, it also affects the society as family is an unit in the society. This abuse of process of law is to be deprecated and curbed. While taking cognizance of the cases of this nature, utmost care is to be taken to see that no innocent person is subjected to prosecution and consequently to unnecessary harassment. Registering and prosecuting a case against any individual in respect of a criminal charge without sufficient material is nothing but abuse of the process of law and curtailing his life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India which should be curbed.

¶16

8. The circumstances of the case amply provide that a false case was foisted against A-2 to A-7 which is nothing but abuse of the process of law. The Apex Court in PREETI GUPTA v. STATE OF

¶17

[1] JHARKHAND , in similar circumstances, observed as follows:

¶18

32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a larger number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

¶19

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

¶20

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 Herculean task in 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

¶21

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

¶22

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, 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.

¶23

9. These norms are quite applicable here. Thereby ultimately the proceedings are to be quashed as prayed for so far as A-2 to A-7 are concerned.

¶24

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.741 of 2011 on the file of the Court of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, so far as A-2 to A-7 are concerned.

¶25

_________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶26

Date:27-09-2012 YCR

¶27

[1] (2010) 7 SCC 667

Smt. Qamarunnisa Begum v. The State of Ap., Rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Qamarunnisa Begum v. The State of Ap., Rep.by its

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

Nichenametla Narayana Vs The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

K.Satyanarayana Murthy Vs The State of A.P.

K.Rajanna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Ramakrishna Vs The State of A.P. rep. by P.P.

M/s. Abc Braodcasting Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of A.P.

Syed Abdul Basith Vs Smt.Nazma Nasrin