This court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners in a dowry harassment case, holding that vague allegations without specific instances of harassment abused the process of law and caused undue hardship.
Proceedings in C.C.No.211 of 2008 against Petitioners A.3 and A.4 are quashed.
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 R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9627 of 2009
ORDER:
Heard Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt A.Triveni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri L.Venkateswar Rao, learned Counsel for the second respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State.
This Criminal Petition is filed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.211 of 2008 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Nampally in so far as petitioners-A.2 to A.4 are concerned.
Admittedly, after filing of this case, the first petitioner expired and now she is no more. Therefore, the case against petitioner No.1-A.2 stands abated.
On the report lodged by the second respondent-Smt Ratika, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners-A.2 to A.4 and her husband-A.1 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Brief facts are that the second respondent married Sri Avinash Wagrey-A.1 on 12.05.2004 at Sridhar Function Plaza, Hyderabad. Few days after the marriage, the second respondent and A.1 left to U.K. and started living there. It is alleged by the second respondent that the first petitioner, mother of A.1, petitioner Nos.2 and 3, brother and sister of A.1, have been demanding her to bring gold ornaments and silver articles and also a huge amount of dowry. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that on 22.12.2007, A.1 suddenly came to Hyderabad without
purchasing ticket for her and, on the same day, she arrived at Hyderabad by contacting her parents which allegation seems to be highly unconvincing and unacceptable. There is no specific allegation as to when the petitioners actually visited either U.K or when the first respondent stayed with her at U.K. and only some general allegations have been made against the petitioners alleging that they had instigated A.1 to demand additional dowry.
Upon hearing both the learned counsel and perusing the material papers available on record, I am of the considered view that, in the absence of any specific allegations probablising the contention of the second respondent-wife, if the proceedings are allowed to continue in the Trial Court, they cause much hardship to the petitioners. Basing on some vague and general allegations, the petitioners cannot be made to face the trial for the abovementioned offences. Since the allegations do not indicate any specific instances of harassment or the manner in which the second respondent was harassed by the petitioners, this Court has to necessarily hold that there is no substance in the allegations and involving the petitioners in a case of this nature is nothing but abuse of process of law.
For the reasons mentioned above, the entire proceedings against petitioner Nos.3 and 4 (A.3 and A.4) in C.C.No.211 of 2008 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Nampally are quashed.
The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date:26.07.2012 usd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for dowry harassment can be quashed due to absence of specific allegations and evidence.
Whether vague and general allegations constitute abuse of the process of law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.2 (Petitioners-A.2, A.3, A.4)
State
A.1
Smt Ratika
R.KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
