The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners (Accused Nos. 3 and 4) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court held that vague allegations of mistreatment did not establish cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
Quashed the proceedings against Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (petitioners) in C.C. No. 405 of 2018.
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 HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 894 OF 2022
Between:
...Petitioners/Accused (A4)
AND
RespondenUComplai nant
...ComplainanULW-{
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 quash the proceedings atleast against A3 and A4 in CC. No.405 of 2018 on the file of the court of the Hon'ble Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally Hyderabad, in the interest ofjustice.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022
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 CC.No.405 of 2018 on the file of the court of the Hon'ble Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, in the interest ofjustice.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. VENKATA SUBBA RAJU, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2
The Court made the following: ORDER
(.rl.F 3t iion No.894 of 2022
1
THE }t )I{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE TI.SLIII[NI.)ER
cEMoF-l,l!2
ORDER:
This Cr r rinal Petition is filed under Section 482 cf the Code of Criminal Proc€ fure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.) by tlrepetitioners- Accused Nos.-l :nd 4 seeking toquash theproceedingt:; against them in C.C.No.405 :f 2018pending on the file of XIII l,riditirlnal Chief Metropolitan 14 rgrstrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, recistered for the offencespunis,l able under Sections 498-4 of Indian Fr:nal Code(for short "lPC") arr :;ections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibitiorr Act (for short "D.P. Act""
_-----
Crl.Petition No.894 of 2022
2
\
complainant gave gold ornaments and dowry to Accus€d No.1. After f) three months of marriage, Accused No.l left to Dubai and the complainant stayed in the house of petitioner No.1 where she was treated like a maid servant. Accused No.1 tortured her stating that if he had married someone else he would have got more dowry and also harassed her physically and mentally. A panchayat was held before the elders and Accused No.1 undertook to look after the complainant well. During the year 2015, the sister of complainant was married and at that time while she was staying in her parents' house, the matter was settled in between her and her husband and both of them started living together in Hyderabad. Later, Accused No.1 informed complainant over phone that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has to begiven and beat her, for which reason parents of complainant lodged a complaint with Abids Police Station. After counseling at Bharosa Center, complainant was taken back by Accused No.1. Even after fulfilling the demands of Accused No.1, he continued harassing complainant. Petitioner No.2 herein-Accused No.4 visited the house of complainant and Accused No.1 in Hyderabad and his behavior was notproper. Further, Apcused No.1 necked out complainant from the house and when she went to her parenG house, Accused No.1 went there and created nuisance, for
Crl P Iilion \o.894of2022
3
a which reason thepresent complaint was lodged with lumanyun Nagar Police S a:,ion. Thereafter, the case was inves iqated byWPS, CCS, DD Polic : Station and after completion of inv,:stig;rtion, they filed charge s re,et against Accused Nos.1 to 4 fcr the offences punishable urr :r Sections 498-A of IPC and 3, 4 of D I). Act.
'CrirninalAp|r:rl No I ,5 of i1022
Crl.Petition No.894 of 2022
4
5, As seen from the complaint, the allegation against these( </sup> petitioners is that petitioner No.1 treated the complainant like a maid servant when Accused No.1 went to Dubai. Except the said allegation, there are no other instances narrated by the complainant as to how the petitioner No.1 subjected the complainant to any kind of cruelty over a period of nearly seven years as narrated in the complaint. Even according to the complaint, the allegation against petitioner No.2-Accused No,4 who is the son of petitioner No.1Accused No.3 is that when petitioner No.2 went to Hyderabad and stayed in the house of Accused No.1 and complainant, his behavior was not good.
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall bepunished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to threeyears and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For thepurpose ofthis section,"cruelty" means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of.the woman; or -i
Crl.D{ t,1 on llo.894 of 2022
5
t ,
(b) haras nrent of the woman where such hara;smert is with a vrr w to coercing her or any person relat:cl to her to meet any unlawful demand for any prol:,:r' or valuable :ecurity or is on account of failurr: by it:i or any person re ated to her to meet such demand.
Crl.Petition No.894 ot 2022
6
Cr
Miscellaneous tions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ,ph.
Sd/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGIST,&AR //TRUE COPY' sEcroN &(r"r*
To,
Njb ry
HIGH COt FIT
KS,J
DATED:1, 11212022
..;
f/rT.c ar'
/...<br>./t .'
t
i r n sE[?tt
ORDER
CRLP.No. )94 ot 2022
ALLOWINC- IIE CRIMINAL PEI'ITION
@#-",
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings against the petitioners (Accused Nos. 3 and 4) should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether vague allegations of treating the complainant like a maid servant amount to cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and othersReferred¶36
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Jabeen, Wo. Abdul Rawoof
Akbar lmran Mohammad, S/o Abdul Rawoof
The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor
Smt. Shahana Sultana, W/o Mahaboob lrilohammed
K. SURENDER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
