Common order quashing criminal proceedings for cruelty and dowry harassment. Proceedings against A3, A5, and A4 were dismissed; investigation continued against A1 and A2.
Proceedings quashed against A3, A4, A5; investigation ordered to continue against A1 and A2.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Criminal Petition Nos.4891 and 5951 of 2011
COMMON ORDER:
A1 to A3 and A5 in Crl.P.No.4891 of 2011 and A4 in Crl.P.No.5951 of 2011 seek to quash the proceedings against them in Cr.No.13 of 2011 on the file of WPS, Kadapa registered for the offences under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2a) The defacto complainant is the wife of A1; A2 and A3 are parents and A4 and A5 are sister and brother of A1.
b) The complaint allegations are that the complainant and her parents belonged to Kadapa and her father is an agriculturist and businessman; she studied MCA; her marriage with A1 was held on 17.08.2005 at Hyderabad; during marriage, on the demand of accused her parents gave Rs.5 lakhs as dowry and 2 lakhs worth golden ornaments; that apart, complainant’s father agreed to register land admeasuring Ac.7.50 cts. situated at Appireddypally Village, Mudukur Mandal in the name of complainant and A1; within short time after marriage A2—the motherin-law of complainant, asked the complainant to sell away the land and give the money as they do not want the land; when the complainant informed the said fact to her father, he expressed his inability to sell the land within short notice and the said answer was not to the liking of A1 and therefore, A1 and A2 insisted the complainant to sell away the land and bring money; since she failed to fulfill their demand, all the accused
2
started picking up quarrel with her and humiliated and manhandle her; they also harassed her mentally; they threatened that if her father does not give money as demanded, A1 would give divorce and marry another fair looking girl; they made an alternative proposal that if her father was unable to sell the land, atleast he should arrange Rs.20 lakhs to the accused to purchase a flat in Hyderabad; while the matters stood thus, in the first week of October, 2005 when her parents came to Hyderabad to see her, A1 bluntly told them that unless and until the amount was paid to them, they would not allow the complainant in their house and asked them to take her away and A1 necked her out of the house; in those conditions her parents took her to Kadapa and the gold ornaments which were presented to her at the time of marriage were held up with her in laws; mediators like A.Venkataiah of Siddavaram and A.Chandrasekhar of Tadipatri have tried to compromise, but A1 did not agree to take the complainant to matrimonial home; the accused have meted out all the harassments only due to non-payment of the amount by selling the land. It is further alleged that A1 had a second marriage with Varalakshmi and due to harassment of accused, she committed suicide and complainant came to know that a crime was booked against the accused by the police of Kukatpally PS.
3
4
the divorce OP was allowed on 29.06.2009 and 1½ years thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint belatedly to harass the accused with all false allegations. He further argued there are no specific allegations against individual accused. He thus prayed to allow the petitions.
5
was held on 17.08.2005. The parents of the complainant belonged to Kadapa whereas the accused are residents of Vanastalipuram in Hyderabad and within short time after marriage, disputes arose between the couple. Whereas the complainant alleges that A1 and the other accused, within short time after marriage, started demanding the complainant to prevail upon her father to sell the land and give the money and when they failed to do so they started harassing her, the counter allegation of the accused is that complainant being the only daughter to her parents was a pampered child and right from honeymoon days, she started pestering A1 to set up a separate family which he refused owing to his responsibility towards his family members and hence she developed grudge against him and his family members and went away along with her father and brother to her native place unminding the request made by A1.
6
one whereas the allegation against A1 and A2 is a specific one. Further, in October, 2005 when her parents came to see her, all the accused again made the demand and A1 necked out the complainant. We will also find an allegation that A1 had a second marriage with one Varalakshmi and she committed suicide due to his harassment and a crime was registered in Kukatpally PS. Therefore, the allegations against A1 and A2 are specific ones requiring investigation with circumspection to know whether the complaint is a truthful one or as a measure of retaliation against divorce obtained by A1 since the complaint was lodged admittedly 1½ years after the divorce decree. Sofaras other accused are concerned, the allegations are only general and omnibus in nature. Added to it, A4 is the married sister of A1 and her complicity in the alleged offence is highly improbable.
a) Crl.P.No.4891 of 2011 is partly allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.13 of 2011 are quashed against the petitioners/A3 and A5. However, the investigation shall go on against the petitioners/A1 and A2.
b) Crl.P.No.5951 of 2011 is allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.13 of 2011 are quashed against the petitioner/A4.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
Date:12.10.2018 Murthy
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed against the accused.
Whether allegations against A1 and A2 are grave enough to warrant investigation while others are general.
Whether the sister (A4) had the requisite mental state of complicity in the alleged offence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A1 and A2
A3 and A5
A4
Complainant
U Durga Pradad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
