Partly allowed

Meena Madati v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC25 Oct 2018CRLP/3722/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a partial quash order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a dowry harassment case. The court quashed proceedings against petitioner A2 due to lack of specific overt acts but allowed them to continue against petitioners A4 and A5 for specific harassment allegations.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 2011 are quashed sofaras petitioner A2 is concerned; proceedings against petitioners A4 and A5 shall continue.

Meena Madati Vs State of A.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO Criminal Petition No.3722 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners/A2, A4 and A5 seek to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.177 of 2011 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶4

The defacto complainant is the wife of A1; A2 is the sister and A4 and A5 are parents of A1.

¶5

2a) The complaint allegations are that the marriage between complainant and A1 was performed on 05.09.2005; during the marriage, her parents gave Rs.1 lakh towards dowry, 30 tolas of gold, other house hold articles besides land worth about 15 lakhs; from the first day of the marriage the accused harassed her; on 08.09.2005, she went to the inlaws’ house for performing pooja and returned on 14.09.2005; on 16.09.2005 the accused sent her to their parents’ house on the ground of paitramasam; on 20.09.2005 A1 left to USA; before leaving for USA, A1 did not give any contact number; after reaching USA also he never contacted her; though she sent number of e-mails, A1 did not reply; thereafter, when she visited her in-laws on weekends, she was harassed mentally and did not allow her to contact with her husband; on 15.10.2005 when she wanted to stay in their house, the accused did not allow her into the house saying that it is not A1’s house and it was gifted to his sister—A2 and necked her out; when her mother went to ask as to

¶6

¶7

why A1 was not contacting, they said, A1 was not contacting them also; at that time A2 talked with her mother in filthy language, abused and insulted her; since A1 did not have fellowship at USA, A4 demanded to pay Rs.25 lakhs for his academics; with great difficulty the parents of complainant arranged Rs.3 lakhs; on the next week, A4 forcibly took her to Gynecologist and subjected her several tests, where the lady doctor found no problem with her and asked A4 to bring her son (A1) for consultation; that annoyed A4 and she grew wild over complainant in the car and pulled her hair and beat her severely; A4 proclaimed that she would have got Rs.2 crores dowry in their community for the qualification of her son; since then A4 and A5 did not allow her into their house; when the parents of the complainant went for talks, they curtly told she is not the wife of their son and they did not have any relation with her and the accused did not allow her to enter into the house.

¶8

b) Basing on the said complaint, the police of WPS, Begumpet registered a case in Cr.No.37 of 2006 and after investigation filed charge sheet which was taken cognizance by learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and registered as C.C.No.177 of 2011 for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

¶9

Hence, the instant quash petition.

¶10

Heard arguments of Sri J.C.Francis, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor (TS) for R1. Notice sent to R2 but not yet returned.

¶11

¶12

As can be seen from the complaint allegations, except omnibus and generalized allegations, no specific overtacts of harassment were made against petitioner/A2. The petitioner/A2 is the married sister-in-law of the defacto complainant. The only allegation made against her in the compliant is that after A1 left for USA, when the complainant was going to in-laws house every weekend, they caused her mental harassment and not allowed her to contact her husband and on 15.10.2005, when she wanted to go and stay in her in-laws place, they did not allow her into the house saying that it was not A1’s house and it was gifted to his sister and necked her out. On knowing this incident, when her mother went to ask as to why A1 was not contacting the complainant, they replied that A1 was not contacting them also and at that time petitioner/A2 allegedly talked with her mother in filthy language, abused and insulted her. At another instance also, the complainant mentioned, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband abused her in filthy language. Except this allegation we do not find any specific overtacts of harassment attributed to petitioner/A2. The omnibus and generalized allegations without giving the particulars of overtacts, which in the perception of the complainant would amount to cruelty, cannot make a person liable for the charge under Section 498A IPC. The petitioner/A2 is admittedly the married sister of A1. Therefore, it is highly improbable to believe that she was present and made a verbal abuse against the mother of the complainant. Even if such an allegation is accepted to be true, the abuse was not made directly against the complainant, but it was

¶13

¶14

made against her mother. So, in any view of the matter, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 would amount to abuse of process of court.

¶15

Sofaras petitioners/A4 and A5 are concerned, the complainant made specific allegations against them. It is her case that ever since A1 left for USA and complainant was visiting her in-laws house to stay with them, they were not allowing her to stay and they also harassed her emotionally by not allowing her to talk with her husband. It is specifically mentioned that on 15.10.2005 when she went to her in-laws house, they did not allow her to stay in the house saying that it was not the house of A1 and it was gifted to her sister-in-law and necked her out. It is also alleged that once A4 took her to Gynecologist and forcibly subjected her to several tests and the lady doctor found no problem with the complainant and asked A4 to bring her son for consultation. That annoyed A4 and she grew wild over complainant in the car and pulled strands of her hair and beat her severely. She proclaimed that she would have got Rs.2 crores dowry in their community for the qualification of her son and since then A4 and A5 did not allow her into their house. When the parents of the complainant went for talks, they curtly told she was not the wife of their son and they did not have any relationship with her. When the second time her parents went for negotiations, they did not even allow them to enter the house. Therefore, there is a prima facie material in the form of specific overtacts of harassment against the

¶16

¶17

petititoners/A4 and A5 and as such it is not apt to quash the proceedings as against them.

¶18

In the result, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.177 of 2011 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are quashed sofaras petitioner/A2 is concerned. However, the proceedings against the petitioners/A4 and A5 shall continue. Hence, they shall face trial and vindicate their defence. The trial Court shall decide the case on merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order. Considering the old age of the petitioners/A4 and A5, their attendance before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the occasions when their presence is specifically required by the trial Court.

¶19

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶21

Date: 25.10.2018 Murthy

Meena Madati v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Madati v. State of A.P.

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

M/s Sri Sai Karuna Finance and Enterprises, Jawahar Rao, Vs Smt. N.Sandhayarani

Sadhana Mandir Trust,registered No.94 of 1956,having Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board, rep.by its Chief

Shaik Abdul Alam Vs the State of Ap., and 2 Others

Mr.K.Prabhakar Reddy, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad Vs D.Sreeramulu Reddy, Kothapet, Hyderabad and Anr, Rep. by Pp.

Annavarjula Sobha Vani and 2 Others Vs Annavarjula Nachara Vara Prasad and Anr.

Ragam Satya Raghavendra Vs Ragam Manasa and the State of A.P.