Dismissed

Shama Bint Moosa , Shama Tabashum v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Telangana HC4 Dec 2023CRLP/11282/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC regarding dowry and cruelty offences. The High Court held the matter requires full-fledged trial and rejected the plea for premature interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; appearance of petitioner before trial Court dispensed with.

Shama Bint Moosa , Shama Tabashum Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11282 OF 201s

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shama Bint Moosa @ Shama Tabashum, W/o. Mohd. Arshad, Aged 25^years, Occ: Household, Rl/o. Sriram Nagar, Yusuf Guda, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONERY ACCUSED NO. 6

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, High Court Hyderabad, Through Women P.S.^'M' Nagar, Mahabubunagar District.

¶12

Smt. Amutal Gaffar, Wo. Amer Bin Moosa, Aged 25 years, Occ Housewife, Caste Muslim, R/o. H.No.1-5-2714, Venkateshwara Nursing Home, backside, New Town, Mahabubnagar District.

¶13

... COMPLAINANTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, lhe High Court may be pleased to call for the records relatrng to crime registered in C.C. 44 of 2014 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at tvlahabubnagar U/S. 498-A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and quash the same against the Petitioner

¶15

CRLPMP. NO: 11374 OF 201 5

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr^p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all furlher proceedings in cc.No.44t2o14 on lhe file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of the First ctass at tvlahabubNagar District, U/s. 498-4 of IPC and sections 3, 4 of Dowry prohibition Act pending disposal of the Crl.P

¶17

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, upon perusingthe lvlemorandumof} Grounds of Criminal^{Petition and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri OmarA} pasha, Advocate for the Petitioner, sri K Rama Kotaiah,^{Assistant Public} Prosecutor on behalf of^{the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the} Respondent No.^2.

¶18

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E. V. VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL PEf,ITION No.11282^{oF 2015}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition under^{Section 482 of Criminal} Procedure Code is filed^{by the petitioner/A6,seeking to} quash the proceedings initiated^{againsther in C'C'No'44of} 2Ol4 on the file of learned^{JudicialMagistrate of First} Class, Mahabubnagar^{(for short, 'the trial Court"), for the} offence punishable under^{Section498-A of Indian Penal} Code and Sections 3 and^{4 of the Dowry ProhibitionAct'}

¶23

Heard Sri Omar A.Pasha,^{learned counselfor the} petitioner; and Mr' K.Ramakotaiah,^{learnedAssistant} Public Prosecutor appearing^{for the respondentNo' 1-State'}

¶24

The brief facts of the^{case are that the marriageof} R2/de-facto complainant^{was solemnizedwith Al/Amer} Bin Moosa on 16.12.2007^{as per the Muslimrites and} traditions. At the time of^{marriage,the parentsol the de} facto complainant gave an^{amount ofRs.2,OO'0OO/-'} 8 tulas of gold and other household^{articles worth} Rs.1,00,OO0/- and a Pulsar 15O CC bike to the^de-facto

¶25

¶26

complainant's husband and in-laws towards dowry. The de-facto complainant joined the company of her husband and lived happily for five months. Thereafter, the husband, in-laws, brother-in-law and petitioner/A6 herein, who i's the sister-in-law, harassed the de-facto complainant for want of additional dowry. Through marriage wedlock, initially the de-facto complainant begot a female baby. When she became pregnalt for the second time, she was taken to the diagnostic centre by tl.e petitioner/A6 herein for determination of the sex of the foetus, and on coming to know about the existence of female foetus in her womb her pregnancy was terminated forcibly. The husband and in_ laws of the de-facto complainalt received a sum of Rs.50,O0O/- (Rupees fifty thousand onty) towards additional dowry and on refusal by the de-facto complainant to sell the motor bike, the husband and inlaws harassed her physica-lly and mentally. Basing on the complaint dated 02.06.2O13 made by the de-facto complainant, the Station House Officer, registered a case in Cr.No.2S/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 498-4 of Indian penal Code and Sections 3 and, 4 of Dowry

I )

I I I iI I ! i I I I I I I j

¶31

Prohibition Act, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is frled against A1 to 46 and the sEune was numbered as C.C.No.44 of 2Ol4 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar Aggrieved by the same, the present Crimina-l Petition is filed by the petitioner/A6.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/A6 herein is a married sister-in-law of the defacto complainant and she is a Nurse by profession and living separately at Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The learned counsel also contended that no specihc allegations have been made against the petitioner herein and only to wreck vengeance against the petitioner/A6, she has been dragged into this matter. l,earned counsel for the petitioner/A6 draws attention of this Court to the Judgment dated 20.Ol.2Ol1 in S.C.No.218 of 2O1O passed by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court) at Hyd,"-rabad, wherein Al to A3 therein were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 3O4-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which itself

¶33

¶34

proves that the petitioner/A6 is innocent^{and false} allegations have been levelled^{against her. He, therefore,} contends that accusing the^{petitionerfor the offence} punishable under Section 498-A of^{IPC and Sections 3 and} 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act^basing on^{omnibus allegations} is nothing but abuse of the^{process of law. Learned counsel} also relied upon a decision of the^{Hon'ble Supreme Court in} @eta Mahrotra and another as State of Uttar Pradesh and anotherr and contended that the^{allegationslevelled} against the petitioner herein are omnibus in nature^and none of the alleged offences under Section 498-4 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act^weremade out against the petitioner/,,{6 herein, who is married^sister of A1 and not living under the same roof. He, therefore, prays to allow the criminal petition by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A6 in C.C.No.44 ol 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

I (2012) ro scc 711

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased in the judgment dated 20.01.2011 in S.C.No.218 of 2010 relied upon by the learnqd counsel for the petitioner/A6 was none other than the co-sister of the de-facto complainant and, prima-facie, A1 to A3 therein were acquitted for non-examination of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certifrcate to that effect Being a Nurse by profession, it can be assumed that the petitioner/A6 might have injected some drLlg resulting in abortion of the de-facto complainant. l€arned Assistant Public Prosecutor further contended that the police upon thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner/A6 and other accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Unless and until a full-fledged trial is conducted, the real truth will not come out Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition

¶39

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusing the

¶40

¶41

material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires adjudication, at length, and it is for the trial Court to pass appropriate orders after conducting full-fledged trial and upon exarnining the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Criminal Petition at the premature stage

¶42

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, appearance of the petitioner / A6 before the trial Court is dispensed with on all occasions during the course of trial, except as and when required by the trial Court.

¶43

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶44

closed.

¶45

ARI PRASAD SD/.V.^H ASSISTANT^REGt

¶46

/ITRUE^COPYI/

¶47

SECTTON^OFFICER

¶48

"'f ig{:J1;il+'E'"i1"3p^{[:'U[:J'a'#?1?:r* rg":ff sitd"ns'n""'l}