Allowed

Pandi Prakasa Rao v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC5 Sept 2022CRLP/6988/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition quashing proceedings against a sister-in-law accused of dowry harassment. The court held that allegations were general and omnibus, failing to establish specific involvement beyond the husband and his immediate family, thus warranting quashment in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 965 of 2019 against the petitioner were quashed.

Pandi Prakasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITIoN NO: 6988 oF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pandi Prakasa Rao, S/o. Thiru pathaiah, Hindu, Aged 48 years. Nandigama Village and Mandalam, Krishna District. Andhra Pradesh State.

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused-3

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶11

2 Nandigarna Saritha, W/o. Saidulu, Hindu, Aged 26^years, R/o. Kasarabada Village, Suryapeta Mandalam and District, Telangana State.

¶12

...RespondenUComplainant

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.F.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Proceedings in 0.C. No. 965 of 2019^pending against the^{petitioner/Accused} No.3 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapeta for the alleged offences Under Sections 498-4, 448, 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC r/w Section 3, 4 DP Act.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶15

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 be pleased to stay all further^proceedings in C.C. No. 965 of 2019^pending against the petitioner/Accused No.3 on the tile of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapeta for the alleged offences Under Sections 498-4, 448, 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC r/w Section 3, 4 DP Act.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DEVADASS

¶17

BALANTHA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public P|osecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or by Advor)ate.

¶18

The^(:ourt made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6988 of 2Ol9

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This petition is field by A3, who has been practising as an advocate, seeking quashment of C.C.No.965 of 2OL9 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet cognizance of which was taken for the offence under Sections 4984, 448, 427,323, 5O4 and 506 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶23

The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under:

¶24

The marriage of the de-facto complainant was taken place with A1 about 7 years ago. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of A1's family, an amount of Rs.2 lal<hs, 5 tulas of gold ornaments, house hold articles of value of which is about Rs.SO,OOO/- were given to the family of A1 and performed marriage. Four years after the marriage, her husband A1, her mother-in-1aw, her husbarrd's brother-in-law (the petitioner herein/A3), her younger brother-inlaw and his wife started gossips that she has

¶25

¶26

¶27

illegal intimacy with another person. All accused wanted her to agree the illegal intimacy with another person. They harassed for two years. De-facto complainrlnt informed the same to her mother also eleder brothe^-, Saidulu, and dispute is placed before the elders, wher<.in her husband agreed that they are incorrect, however, they demanded additional dowry. Father of the de-facto <:omplainant has given one buffalo worth of Rs.50,000/-. A1 promised to take care of the de-facto complainant.

¶28

However, her husband has again continued the harassment. Her husband has called the elders and in their presence, he asked the de-facto comp,lainant to agree that she has illegal intimacy, whictr the de-facto complainant did not accept, on whiclt the de-facto complainant was necked out of her in-laws house by keeping the children with them. Nurnber of times, panchayat was held and all the elders have stated that mistake is with A1. The family memtrers of A1 has informed the de-facto complainant that ttrey will perfor-m the marriage of A1 with another women b;, giving divorce.

-"'2

r I

All accused are spreading roomers that the de-facto complainant is having bad character. On 06.07.2019 at 2.00 p.m., Al came to Kasarabad village, criminally trespassed into her house, abused her in filthy language and beat her with hands and 1egs. The mother and the brother of the de-facto complainant have intervened, but A1 has a-lso abused them and he has damaged two cots.

¶34

On complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No. 121 of 2Ol9 was registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 44a, 427,323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation, police have recorded the statement of the de-facto complainant, visited the scene of offence, seized the damaged cots, examined all the witnesses and filed the charge sheet. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A3 has filed this petition seeking quashment on the following grounds:

¶35

The de-facto complainalt has made bald allegations against the petitioner, which are ex facie false and continuation of proceedings amount to abuse of process of

¶36

¶37

1aw, the petitioner is no way concerned witll the allegations levelled against A1, there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner and he has been residinE, in a different village, whereas A1 and other family meml)ers are residing in other village.

¶38

¶39

Heard both sides and perused the reccrd.

¶40

Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet against the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.965 of 2019 can be quashed?

¶41

There is no dispute that the marriage of the de-facto complainant with A1 was taken place and during wedlock, the de-facto complainant gave birth to twc children. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of A1 and a practising advocate at Nandigama, Krishna Districl . The de-facto complainant has narrated many incidents to attract various offences, including Section 498A and Sections 3 ancl 4 ofthe Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused. On careful scrutiny of all the allegations with the help_ of the complaint and statement under Sectio-r i61 Cr.P.C., of

¶42

¶43

the de-facto complainant ald others, it is clear that at the time of marriage, the family of the de-facto complainant has given some cash and^jewellery to A1 and his family members.

¶44

After four years of the marriage, the disputes started between Al and the de-facto complainant, matter was taken before the elders on which A1 has expressed that the dowry given was not sufficient on which the mother of the de-facto complainant has sent one buffalo After sometime again A1 has started harassing the de-facto complainant. He wanted the de-facto complainant to admit that she has got illegal intimacy with other person in the presence of elders in panchayat. Subsequently, A1 has sent out ttre de-facto complainant out of the house by keeping the children with him. Family members of A1 have expressed that they will take divorce with the de-facto complainant and perform the marriage of A1 with other women.

¶45

On 06.07.2O19, Al entered the house of the de-facto complainant's mother where the de-facto complainaat was staying and abused the de-facto complainant, beat her and

¶46

¶47

damaged the cots and other properties. threatened her with dire consequences and left.

¶48

In all the incidents narrated aboue, there is no mention by the de-facto complainant or her mother or anybody on her behalf about the involvement of the petitioner/A3. The allegation levelled against the petitioner/A3 are that after four years of m arriage, de-facto . complainant has said that a1l family nrembers of Al, including the petitioner/A3, has spread the roomers that she has got illegal intimacy with other person. This statement is the only major allegation levdled against the petitioner/A3. The de-facto complainant has also mentioned that the petitioner/A3 has forc:d her to admit in the presence of elders that she has got illega-l intimacy with other person. These are the two incittents which the de-facto complainant has connected the petitioner/A3 with the offences alleged against him.

¶49

The de-facto complainant has mrrde a general statement that her husband and all the family members, including the petitioner has spread the ro,rmers that the

¶50

¶51

¶52

de-facto complainant has got iliegal intimacy with other person. The de-facto complainant has not mentioned that with whom the petitioner/A3 has spread the rumours t-hat the de-facto complainant has developed illegal intimacy. Further, the name of the person with whom the petitioner and other family members stated to have developed intimacy is not mentioned. The de-facto complainant has not mentioned as to on which date the petitioner has mentioned that the de-facto complainant has developed illegal intimacy, there is no mention as to on what date, with whom what kind of news or false information was spread by the petitioner. The de-facto complainant has not given the details as to in which year, on what date, at what time, with whom, what kind of roomers spread by the petitioner. Though the de-facto complainant has gave a general statement that all the family members of A1 has spread the roomers that she has got illegal intimacy with other person, who is that person is also not mentioned. Therefore, without there being any sort of details, basing on genera.l statement, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections

¶53

¶54

4984,448, 427,323,5O4 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even if the allegations are correct, then the question would be hov, they constitute offence under Section 498A IPC

¶55

There is no mention as to on what date, at which place, in whose presence the petitioner has pressurized the de-facto complainant to accept her iilegal relations. The de-facto complainant has not mentioned :he names of the elders and the police have not recorded the statements of the elders in whose presence the accused stated to have pressurized the de-facto complainant to rlccept her illegal intimacy. Even this statement is accepted to be correct, still nothing is specifically mentiont:d against the petitioner. It is omnibus statement that al1 the accused have pressurize the de-facto complainant to accept that she has got illegal intimacy with other per:ion.

¶56

Admittedly, the petitioner is a practising advocate in Nandigama, whereas all the incidents were happened at other village. The petitioner has never stayed in the faniily of A1. The petitioner is no other than the brother-in-Iaw of

/---*_

A1. When the petitioner has not been residing along with the family of A1 and he has been residing in other town ald practising as an advocate, it is clear that the name of the petitioner is involved in order to pressurize the family of A1 so that they will come to the terms.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority in Kahkashaa Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and othersl, wherein it is held at paras 17 and 19 as under:

¶63

'r17. Recently, in K. Subba^{Raov. The State of} Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452), it was also observed that:-

¶64

"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."

¶65

Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against t1.e appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnance'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein, i.e,, none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made

¶66

I AIR 2022 Supreme Court 820

¶67

sI.

¶68

¶69

against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role pkLyed by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and olnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. lnsofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not e::amitred the veracity of allegations made against hin. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being lleneral and omnibus, do not warrarlt prosecution."

¶70

In Mirza iqbal alias Golu and another vs. State of \Ittar Pradesh and another2, wherein it is held at para 1 1 as under:

¶71

"18. Their Lordships of the Supreree C(lurt in Ramesh case (20O5) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SOC (Cri) 735 : (AIR 2005 SC 1989) had been pleased ro hold that the bald allegations made against the sist,:r-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest th(: anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possibie. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal tasis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offerLces alleged against the appellants. The learned J,rdges were pleased to hold that looking to the allega ions in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 4t)6 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act rvere made against the married sister of the cornplainant's husband who was undisputedly not livir.g with the family of the complainant's husbanrl. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the

¶72

'2^{/\lR 2022 supreme Court 69}

¶73

!hxt*:--_

¶74

¶75

proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed."

¶76

Considering the ratio laid down in the above authorities, it is clear that on perusal of the entire complaint and charge sheet, the allegations in respect of offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 44a, 427, 323, 5O4 and 506 IPC are all made against A1. However, so far as Section 498A IPC is concerned, a general statement has been given by the defacto complainant that A1 and his family members, including the petitioner, has asked her to admit that she got illegal intimacy with other person. Therefore, mentioning of those narnes are very vague and bald statements, no specilic allegations disclosing involvement of the petitioner specifically in any of the incident has not been mentioned. Therefore, by applying the rationale of the above authorities, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.965 of 2Ol9 cannot be proceeded with.

¶77

¶78

In the result, the crimina.l petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.965 of 2Ol9 againr;t the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶79

¶80

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall r;tand closed.

¶81

SD/. K. SAI KUMARI A JSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i , ,.t .

¶82

To,, SECTION OFFICER The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryirpet. i). . rwo r he Station CCs to the pubtic House officer, prosecuioi, Suryapet niLraf nign Cor; pof iie f"i 6:it"ion ir suryapet District. at Hyderabad tOuTl "^b";t"" of Telangana, one cc to sRi DEVADASS Br i; lwo cD copies \LANTHA' Advocate []PUCI MMK ()

1
I
l

,.i

HICiH COURT
DT DNRJ
oriTED:05,0912022
E
110 I
r'r $tl -\l
ORDER
CRLP.No.6988 of 2019
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
cL^-
I
i \

¶88

II
.lj
i
l
I