Dismissed

Parimkayala Andalamma, v. State by Station House officer4

Telangana HC17 Apr 2013CRLP/13385/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.P. No. 13385/2010 dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in a dowry harassment case. The court held that the charge sheet disclosed a prima facie making out of offences and rejected the petition, though it exempted elderly petitioners from attending hearings except when specifically required.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; application of personal presence of petitioners was dispensed.

Parimkayala Andalamma, Vs State by Station House officer4 — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

Crl.P.No.13385/2010

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners who are A-2 and A-3 in CC No.3728/2005 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of proceedings in the said CC, which was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The second respondent herein got married to A-1 on 1-6-1991 at Municipal School, Neela Mahal Road, Gudiwada, Krishna District. At the time of marriage, the parents of the second respondent gave a sum of Rs.6.5 lakhs and 30 tolas gold towards dowry. The sister-in-law of the second respondent demanded additional dowry of Rs.25,000/- and her parents fulfilled the same. On the second day of marriage, A-1 told the second respondent that he married her because of the dowry and his parents pressurized him to marry her in spite of he having an affair with one Surekha, a resident of Guntakal. He is alleged to have forcibly took the second respondent to Guntakal without informing her parents. From that day onwards, the first petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the second respondent, and A-1 started harassing her. It is alleged that A-1 used to consume liquor and beat her. All the accused harassed her mentally and physically. Pursuant to the demand made by the accused, the father of the second respondent paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to A-1 and her mother (A-3). On 21-5-1992 the second respondent gave birth to a girl, for which her in-laws did not accept and left her at her parents house. They again demanded a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to accept her and her daughter. Sometime later, the second respondent along with A-1 shifted to Hyderabad, for which she felt happy, but she came to know that even Surekha also shifted to Hyderabad. It is alleged that her sister-in-law along with her husband, brother-in-law of A-1, and brother of A-1 used to come to Hyderabad and abuse her and her parents on the ground that the second respondent had illegal relationship with somebody. Due to physical torture, the second child in the womb died and abortion took place. It is further alleged that her sister-in-law along with her husband threatened her to get money for their

¶6

business and when she refused, they attempted to kill her. Subsequently, the brothers and father of the second respondent arranged Rs.9.60 lakhs in instalments but the accused were not satisfied with the money they received. She was put to lot of mental torture in the hands of the members of the A-1 family, which forced her to consume pills for committing suicide. Ultimately on 31-12-2002, she came to know that her husband got married again at Gudiwada in the presence of his parents and withdrew all the money kept in the bank. Basing on these allegations, a report was lodged with Kukatpalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation police filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as CC No.3728/2005 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶7

3. Heard Sri S. V.Ramana, the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

¶8

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contends that even accepting the allegations to be true, ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not at all made out against the petitioners. He would further contend that the first petitioner is a old lady residing at Anantapur District, whereas the second petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the defactocomplainant and residing elsewhere with her husband and both were falsely implicated in the case.

¶9

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that a reading of the first information report and the charge sheet would prima facie disclose that the allegations made therein do make out offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be invoked to quash the said proceedings.

¶10

6. A perusal of the charge sheet would clearly disclose that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the second respondent were harassing the second respondent for more dowry. Even on the date of marriage, the sister-inlaw of the second respondent demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as additional

¶11

dowry. After marriage, the petitioners along with the family members of her husband were harassing the second respondent to get additional dowry. It is specifically alleged that pursuant to the demand made, the father of the second respondent paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to A-1 and A-3. Further, unable to bear the harassment meted out to his daughter, the father of second respondent gave substantial amount in instalments. Since the allegations made in the first information report and the charge sheet constitute offences as alleged, the question of invoking the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., would not arise to quash the said proceedings. It cannot be said that taking cognizance of the matter would amount to abuse of process of court and that grave miscarriage of injustice caused to the petitioners when the allegations made prima facie constitute offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In view of the allegations made in the charge sheet, it is not desirable to quash the proceedings by invoking the inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.,

¶12

7. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner is a old lady aged about 76 years and the second petitioner is aged about 56 years and both of them are residing at different places and their presence may be dispensed with on all dates of adjournment.

¶13

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in CC No.3728/2005 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District, is hereby dismissed. The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. However, considering the age, health condition and place of residence of petitioners 1 and 2 who are A-2 and A-3, their presence is dispensed with on all dates of adjournment except on the dates when their presence is specifically required by the trial Court.

¶14

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

¶15

Date: 17.04.2013. KMR

Parimkayala Andalamma, v. State by Station House officer4

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parimkayala Andalamma, v. State by Station House officer4

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

Vedantham Krishna Murthy Vs The State ofAP., Rep.byits

Venkudoth Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Nazia Farheen Vs Akthar Shaikh

M.Anil Kumar, Vs M.Mamatha

S.Prahlad, Vs The State of A.P.

Shaik Rafeeq Ahmed Vs The State of A.P.