This criminal petition prayed for quashing of proceedings under Section 49BA IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court held that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners connecting them to the alleged harassment and allowed the petition.
The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.5060 of 2019 are hereby 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABD
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D,NAGARJUN
GRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1315 OF 2020
Between:
AND
RespondenUComplainant
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P,C,praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may bepleased to Quash the proCeedings in CC No 5060 of 2019 on the file of the Prl Jr Civil Judge cum Vlllth Addl Metropolian [,'lagistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad.
lA NO: 2 OF 2020
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may bepleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance ofpetitioners in CC No 5060 of 2019 on the file of the Prl Jr Civil Judge cum Vlllth Addl Metropolian Magistrate at Kukatpally.
lA NO: 3 OF 2020
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.praying thatin the circumstances stated inthe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may bepleased to extendthe lntertim orders dt. 10-3-2020passed in Crl.P. No. 13 15 of2020 untll. further orders,pending Crl.P.No.1 3 15 of 2020 in the interests of Justice.
The petition coming on for hearing, uponperusing the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CH DHANAI,'IJAYYA, Advocatefor the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of theRespondent No.1 andNone appeared for the Respondent No.2
The Court made thc follo*iag: ORDt.R
THE HO Y')URABLE DR. JUSTICE D.I'IAI}A]UUN CR, MINAL PETITION No.1315 ol'202(,
ORDER:
This pt tition is filed by the petitioners/1,2 and A3, who are the p;rrents of Ai in C.C.No.506O ol 2() 19 on the file of the Pr ncipal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Vllr. .t\dditional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpall5', t)yberabad, cognizance r I which rvas taken against tht-- petitirrners and A1 for tire o h'r-rcc ur-r<ler Section 49BA IPC arc i{iections 3 and.1 ol the t)owry Prohibition Act (for short, "tlre Act") on a cornplaint gr,",en tr-r, t1-r e de-facto complainzml , rvho is no other than t r<' wife of A I .
a. The narriage of the de-facto complirinant was performed '.ith A1 on 19.11.2O2O. At the time of marriage, as per the lemand of the accused, the parents of the defacto comp ainant gave Rs.5 lakhs, 15 tulas of gold, 60 tulas of silr er and household articles as dopry. On the day of the mar iage, rvhen bride and bridegroom lrad a dinner,
<br>
2
II lil
I 1i it il l.r ki t-' iFl
Durga and Sridhar taunted the de-facto complainant that her famiiy has given less dowry. In the meanwhile, one Jyothi/petitioner No.1 came and picked up quarrel, took A1 with her and as the saree of the de-facto complainant was also tied with him, she also went with him. Two days thereafter, petitioner No.1, one Durga, and Devamma told badly about the de-facto complainant to A1 and basing on that A I told the de-facto complainant that marriage ceremony was not done nicely. On their first night also, petitioner No. 1 and one Durga got panic on account of some car accident, thereby they did not stay three nights. Later A I and the de-facto complainant were taken to a house at Bandlaguda and spent rest of the time, wherein they have given a room with attached bathroom, which was also being used by others. On 04.L2.2OIO, de-facto complainant and A1 went to USA where A1 abused her stating that she married him (A1) to separate him from his family, she has taken all his money and gave to her parents and A1 used to abuse her in Iilthy language. In the month of February, 2012, when the de-facto complainant returned back to India, either A1 or his ,/.
/
3
pa-rents callet l-rer. When she was in America, -r,otlri and Devamma m tde propaganda that she is takirrll all the money of A1 a-nd that she will not cook the foc rl etc. On one occaslon s,hen the de-facto complainant zurcl A were traveling in r car, she asked Al as to whl tLe always quarrels, he rtopped the car, left her in the mi<l liry ernd no body was tht re and that she called her mothei iurd on the request of hr r mother, A1 came back and took l.rer home Al used to : lap her. The de-facto complerinan- lrrought a recorder to r:c:ord what all A1 did and uttert;. lrr:t she has not used it. She also wanted to work as a raclio ock':v. On seeing the rt corder, A1 spitted on her face. Il,:lreat her on her head wi h a rod. Police came and she hzrr. ;1ive n good i,l,ords abou A1 and police have gave dontesr -;c violence papers and eft. She completed M.S. in tl.S. arrrl g,rt a. jsl in I.T. com lany. For five years, she and [rt:r parents suffered me rtal agony.
4
it ti
Prohibition Act. During the course of examination, police have recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet only against A1 and his parents and the case against other accused i.e., A4 to A10 was closed as there was no material against them.
5
O4.l2.2OlO.'lhat means, after 15 days of nr;rriage, the de-facto con piainant and Ai have left for LrS :rrrd as per the statemer t of the de-facto complainant ard lL,::r parents and all the v itnesses, whatever harassmerrt aJJe 1y:d against the petition< rs is only prior to O4.12.2O1O u1r:n the defacto compl iinarrt and A i left for US. Tlre de-facto complainaxt has narrated many stories in deta. I as to how A1 has hari ssed her mentaliy, physicallv iur,l beat her. Certain inst mces like beating her, spitting 't: her face, leaving her c r the road, beating r.r,ith stick on lrr:r head and approaching police to their house and enquir. I g the defacto compl rinant and dragging her f:'om l< itchen to bedroom are the horrifying experiences, wl'rich 'r',,:re clea-rly narrated. B tt, all these overt acts are onlr' aga:-rst.,\1 and that too all t uch alleged harassments happent:<l in IIS and not in India Though the de-facto complainant c.rme to India in the month of February, 2012 atd r.r,r:rt back in June, 2O 12 during that time, she has not rnade any complaint t rat during that time the petiti rners have harassed her .
6
7 . The charge sheet filed by the police is only against the petitioners/A2 and A3, who are the parents of A1. It is clearly mentioned in the charge sheet that A1 is absconding and once he is apprehended, a separate charge sheet will be filed. Therefore, these proceedings are only confined to the petitioners/A2 and A3.
7
why the de-facto complainant has not mercle such compiaint ea lier. Neither the de-facto compLrhlart nor her parents c' anybody from the prosecution ln the charge sheet has ex1 lained as to why this was not brortqht to the notice of eith, r to the elders of the family or to tt,: police or anybody. Nc - only that, in USA when the poli:e: reached them, the le -facto complainant did not rn;rke arry complaint eit rcr against her husband or the periii,:rners.
t'
8
than the cornplaint, rvhich would go to show that a-fter marriage, her husband/A1, petitioners, Jyothi, Durga and De'"rrdamma have alleged that the marriage was not properly performed and less dow4r was given. This is the only sentence stated by the de-facto complainant. Except this nothing is attributed either against the petitioners. The same is the case in the statement of parents of the defacto complair-rant. In fact, the statement of the de-facto complainant has been repeated in the subsequent statements of her parents ald also witnesses. It is almost like a cut and paste of the statements. Therefore, on scanning through the entire cha-rge sheet, nowhere it is mentioned about the overt acts as to what specifically the petitioners have done.
7
9
ll rl
specifically nake any comment on thr: de-facto complainant I ecause marriage will be done b,,' t(: p.rrents of the de-fa:to complainant ald such conl:lr(lnts are common in a r5' sort of wedding. Sometimes for,rl may not be good, sor rr:times the place where the marriage was performed is not good, sometimes guests are nc,t properiy received. A1 these things will not in a ' wat rrffe ct the relationship between the de-facto complaineu L i arrd her husbar-rd an I that too those comments will rr, go to the cxtent of fili rg a complaint under Sectionzllr{iA lF'C that too zrfter six rears of such incident.
t (2012) to s( I 741
10
lli
, l2otol 7 scc 667 r {2o18) 14 scc 452 4 (2005) 2 SCC 507
i1
"Befi re we proceed to deal vrith thr: two contentionr relating to limitation ald t(irri I lria-l jurisdictior rve would like to consider frrst the conle r l-ion adva-nced r n behalf of the appellant-Gowri R:un:rsu irrny. Looking at the allegations in tlle F.l. R. and tlle ccr l ents of charge-s 1eet, we hold that none of the alleged ofir r:.ce, viz., Sectio Ls 498-A, 406 of the LP.C. and SectLon 4 :f the Dowry Pro ribition Act are made out against ner. S lrr: is the marri< I sister of the informant's husbzrnd wt r- is undisputer ly living in Delhi with her family. Assr'rring tlat durir 3 the relevant time, i.e., between Marr:lr and October, Ir97, when the 6th respondent (informarrlt Ln'ed in Mumba in her marital home, the said lady stayr:rl vdth them for r orne days, there is nothing in thr: c,rrn: laint which con lects her with an offence under Section 498 A or any, ther offence of which cognizarcc wa sr iLi:en. Certain ac s of taunting and ill-treatment of ir.Lfirrnr L.r : b1 her sister- n- 1aw (appellant) were alleged but tht:1, rl: not " pertain l dowry demand or entrusl mcni and misapprog :iation of property bclonging to tht, irfrrrrra.nt What was said again st her in the F.l.R. is that on s,)m(' occasions. she directed the complainalt tor,t zrstr \'.C alrd she t scd to abuse her and used to l)ir ss re rrrk:; such as "t ren if you have got much jewellew. yo'l ar€ our slave." Itj ; further stated i.n the report that( io\wi \v{)ul(l make wr< :rg imputations to provoke her h.rsl:,an: antl would wa n her that nobody could do an_yt hing :; he: family. Tl:se allegations, even if true, do not amor rrt t() harassme rt rvith a view to coercing the informani: (,r her relation t( meet an unlawful demand for an1 prop:rly or valuable r ecurity. At the most, the allegations rr:vc l[ ttrat her sistt :-in-law Gowri was insuiting :rnd r r erking derogator remarks against her and behaving rr:dely against h :r. Even acts of abetment in connectio : witl-r unlawful demand for property/dowry are nc,t llleged against h ,r. The bald allegations made against her r;rsterin-law se :m to suggest the anxiety of the inf<rrn irnt to rope in a ; many of the husband's relations as p<,,;:;iblt:. Neither tl e F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet fumished 1L: Iegi basis to I 1e Magistrate to take cognizance ol the ofi:nccs alleged e 3ainst the appellant Gowri Rame,su,am1. The High Cot rt ought not to have relegated her :o ihe :rdei of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings aga-in;r tl.e appellant Gowri Ramaswarny arc herebv quashcd irrrl ht:r appeal st uids allowe d."
12
13
./
A1 in USA an I also when she visited India. Tht:ir:fore, in order to arr . twist A 1, perhaps the rrarnes of the petitioners, as tlrey are the parents of A1, are als<, involved. Pelitioner No. I is working as a Governmcnt l eacher at Amalapuram and the petitioners never visitecl America during the cor .rse of their stay
Miscell meous applications, if any, shall st tr:.d r:losed.
sd/- M MANJU'/A DE.F,UTUY REGISTFAR i /TRUE COPY// ,l/ SE(;TION OFFICER
To,
\
ne CC to SRl. lH DHANAMJAYA Advocate IOPUCI
5 Two CD Copies
HIGH COUR'I
Dr. DNRJ
DATED:1811C t2022
ORDER
CRLP.No.13' !,of 2A20
::
()t' 1
e.
(,
J,<br>+
ou
l! $<br>d- \ ,.,i.
I +
ALLOWING 1'IIE CI INlTNAL PETII'ION
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings against the accused persons can be quashed in view of absence of specific allegations against them.
Whether delay in filing the complaint and lack of evidence connecting the petitioners to the alleged offence warrants quashing.
Whether bald allegations of dissatisfaction regarding marriage performance constitute an offence under Section 49BA IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Geetha Malhotra vs. State of Uttar PradeshExplained¶57
Geetha Malhotra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012 to 5 SCC 741) · Who else cites this
Preethi Gupta and another vs. State of JharkhandReferred¶61
Preethi Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand
K. Subba Rao vs. State of TelanganaReferred¶62
K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana
Ramesh and others vs. State of Tamil NaduExplained¶63
Ramesh and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Gubbala Jyothi & ors.
State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
Dr. Justice D. Nagarjuna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
