Dismissed

M.a.Saleem v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC4 Dec 2014CRLP/8229/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings for dowry harassment. The court held that allegations in the FIR and charge sheet prima facie disclosed offences, rejecting the plea that complaints were false. However, A2 to A7 were granted liberty to seek dispensation from personal appearance.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed. Liberty granted to Accused 2 to 7 to move an application for dispensation of personal appearance before the trial court.

M.a.Saleem Vs The State of Ap. — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Criminal Petition No.8229 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioners/Accused 1 to 7 requesting to quash the proceedings against them in the case in Crime No.519 of 2011 of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur Urban registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused 1 to 7, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent/State and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/informant. I have perused the material record.

¶6

3. Now the points for determination are :

¶7

(1) Whether the petitioners/Accused 1 to 7 (‘A1 to A7’) had made out valid and sufficient grounds for quashing the FIR/proceedings in the case in Cr.No.519 of 2011 of Lalapet PS., Guntur?

¶8

(2) Whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the first information, the charge sheet and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose prima facie the commission of any offence much less the alleged offences and make out a case against A1 to A7?

¶9

4. POINTS:

¶10

4. (a) The relevant facts as borne out by the material record placed before this court, in brief, are as follows: - “On 03.12.2011 the 2^nd respondent had filed a report with the Station House Officer, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur stating inter alia as follows: - ‘She is working as a

¶11

Urdu teacher in Guntur Corporation. Her marriage was performed with the A1 on 31.10.2010 at Guntur. By that time A1 was working as the Agricultural Extension Officer, Marteru of West Godavari District. At the time of the settlement of the marriage itself, since the 2^nd respondent is an employee of Guntur Municipal Corporation and as there was no possibility of her transfer to some other town, A1 had promised that he would get himself transferred to Guntur and had made the 2^nd respondent and her family members to believe his said statement. He had also given a form of transfer signed by him to the family members of the 2^nd respondent. Prior to the marriage i.e., on 10.10.2010 A1 and his family members had received Rs.7,00,000/- in cash and also Rs.8,00,000/- by account transfer to the account of A2, who is the mother in law of the 2^nd respondent; and a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/was paid in the presence of elders towards cost of household articles. On the date of marriage, 25 sovereigns of gold jewellery was given to the 2^nd respondent by her parents. When the 2^nd respondent and her family members are trying for the transfer of A1 to Guntur, as pre-planned, he (A1) had applied for transfer and got himself transferred to the Bapatla Agricultural farm. After the marriage, A1, on the instigation of his mother (A2), sister (A3), his paternal aunt (A6) and her son (A7), brother-in-law (A4) and younger brother (A5), used to daily come to the house in a drunken condition and abuse and beat the 2^nd respondent. They had harassed the 2^nd respondent by stating that the dowry given was insufficient and that they want additional dowry and that if the additional dowry is not paid they would perform the marriage of A1 with another woman. Unable to bear the harassment and under force, the 2^nd respondent had withdrawn Rs.1,18,700/- from her bank account and gave the said money. But, not being satisfied with the said payment, she was harassed for further additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. A2 and A3 used to say that the 2^nd respondent is very lucky to get a husband like

¶12

A1 and that to lead a peaceful marital life with A1, the 2^nd respondent has to get additional dowry and thus used to mentally harass her. When the 2^nd respondent had brought the said harassment to the notice of her parents, they had tried to pacify her. On 27.01.2011, a portion in the house of Syed Zaheer was taken on rent and the 2^nd respondent and A1 had set up separate family in that portion. On 27.01.2011, A1 and his mother had demanded a gold chain of 5 sovereigns and also money for the settlement in life of A4 and A5 and had further demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry to be brought from the parental house of the 2^nd respondent and beat her. The parents of the 2^nd respondent had expressed their helplessness to pay further dowry amount. On that A1, A2, A3 and A4 had abused the 2^nd respondent and her family members. On 30.01.2011, all the accused came to Little Flower School, Bapatla and had demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for A1 leading a family life with the 2^nd respondent and had further stated that if the said sum is not paid A1 will marry another woman; and further abused the 2^nd respondent in filthy language. They did not heed the pacifying words of the elders by stating that since the marriage of the 2^nd respondent with A1 is her second marriage she has to listen to whatever they say and that she has to keep quiet; and they had also abused the family members of the 2^nd respondent. They had stated that they are having connections with contract killers and that if anybody interferes in the matter, the 2^nd respondent and her family members would be done to death. Thus, additional amount of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- was demanded for A1 leading the family life with the 2^nd respondent.’ Based on the said report, a case in Crime No.519 of 2011 was registered by the Station House Officer, Lalapet Police Station. After due investigation, a charge sheet was also filed against the Accused 1 to 7 before the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur alleging

¶13

that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.”

¶14

4. (b) Be it noted that all the accused, by this petition, seek to quash the proceedings in the crime. However, the fact remains that by now, a charge sheet has been filed after due investigation.

¶15

4. (c) The learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted as follows: ‘The material allegations in the report of the 2^nd respondent lodged with the police are false and invented. Her contention is that a demand for additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- was made at Little Flower School, Bapatla on 31.01.2011 but on the date of the alleged transaction the 2^nd respondent was present at Municipal Corporation School at Guntur and that it is evident from the said fact that the story is a created and false story and that omnibus allegations were made against the accused particularly accused 2 to 6 to somehow rope in all the family members of A1 to harass the family of A1. The 2^nd respondent had never stayed at the house of A1 at Bapatla. The question of harassment at Guntur does not arise. The alleged complaint was lodged after a delay of 10 days. No reason explaining the delay was stated. With a view to obtain some amount from the petitioners/accused the false complaint was lodged. The allegations made without any details of incidents and the places of occurrence are vague. Subjecting the petitioners/accused to trial when the contents of the complaint are prima facie false is unnecessary. The 2^nd respondent is habituated to approaching the police for silly reasons. When the allegations in the complaint or charge sheet do not constitute any offence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.’

¶16

4. (d) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that at this stage the court has to consider the

¶17

averments in the first information and the charge sheet and also the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police and that in the case on hand, the averments in the material record, if taken at the face value and are examined in the entirety, it is obvious that a prima facie case constituting the offences stated to have been committed by the accused is made out and it is not necessary to scrutinise or appreciate the evidence. He therefore urged that the petition is devoid of merit.

¶18

4. (e) While exercising the inherent jurisdiction to quash a complaint under Section 482 CrPC it is necessary to examine as to whether the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet, even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute a prima facie offence and do not make out a case against the accused. And it is also necessary to examine the question as to whether there is no possibility of conviction of the accused even if the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet are ex facie taken to be true and correct.

¶19

4. (f) Looking at the matter from the point of view of the facts and the law, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners/accused could not satisfy the necessary requirements under law for quashing the proceedings against them. However, considering the fact that almost all the family members of A1 including his married sister, senior aunt, her son and brother-in-law were made as accused, A2 to A7 can be given liberty to make a request to the trial Court at the appropriate time for dispensing with their personal appearance before the trial court, to be considered appropriately by the trial Court.

¶20

5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, however, giving liberty to the petitioners 2 to 7/A2 to A7 to move an appropriate application at the appropriate time before the trial court for dispensing with their personal appearance. It is needless to mention that any such

¶21

application, if filed by the said accused, shall be disposed of in accordance with procedure established by law and on merits and subject to any conditions that may be appropriate, in the discretion of the trial Court.

¶22

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this petition shall stand closed.

¶23

____________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶24

04^th December, 2014 Vjl

M.a.Saleem v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Saleem v. The State of Ap.

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

K.Narasimha Chary, (a-2), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Narasimha Chary,(A-2) Vs State of A.P.

Sura Venkata Ramanamma Vs Soda Venkateswara Achari

G.Eswaramma Vs The State of A.P.

Medini Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gugloth Babu, S/o. Shankar Vs State of Telangana