Allowed

Amgoth Raju Naik v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Mar 2023CRLP/4836/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner-accused. The court held that the complainant suppressed a settlement agreement and allegations of impotency, making the original dowry harassment claim improbable and unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No.807 of 2021 against the petitioners/accused were quashed, and the criminal petitions were allowed.

Amgoth Raju Naik Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

\\ \

t32s1 I

lt:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF IUARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 4836 AND 10s81 OF 2022

¶9

CRL.P.NO.4836 0F 2022:

¶10

Between:

¶11

Amgoth Raju Naik, S/o. Tarachand, Aged about 57 years, R/o.H.No. 49-1 2812, Chinthalkalpana Society, Ganeshnaga r, Hyderabad

¶12

Amgoth Lakshmi Bai, Wo. Angoth Raju Naik, Aged about years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No. 49-12812, Chinthalkalpana Society, Gineshnagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

Amgoth Manoj Naik, S/o. Amgoth Raju Naik, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Pvt Employee, R/o.H.No. 49-12812, Chinthalkalpana Society, Ganeshnagar, Hyderabad

¶14

A.Renuka Devi, Wo. Mahender, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Govt Employee, Rl/o. Near Goutham Degree Near Goutham Degree Degree College-, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

Rl/o. Near Goutham Degree Near Goutham Degree Degree College-, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

1. Mahender,,S/o-Madan^-Singh, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Govt Employee, R/o' Nea r Go utham Des ree co I lese' s' R' Na ga r'rH,3"ilffrtcc

¶17

u s E D N 0.2-6

¶18

AND

¶19

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶20

Bhukya_Sangeetha, Wo. Amgoth Shiva Ram Prasad Naik, Aged about2T years, Occ. Housewife, Kothagudem Town and Mandal, Badrbdri Kothagudem District.

¶21

... RESPON DE NTS/COM PLAI NANTS

¶22

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 charge sheet dated 1810312021 in C.C. No.807 of 2021 before lll Additional Judicial First Ciass Magistrate, Kothagudem.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 151 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C. No.807 of 2021 before lll Additional Judicial First Class lvlagistrate, Kothagudem.

¶25

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of STi.P.RADHAKRISHNA, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Additional Public

¶26

Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri L.Ravinder, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶27

GRL.P.NO.10581 0F 2022:

¶28

Between:

¶29

Amgoth Sivaram Prasad Naik, S/o.Raju Naik, Occ: Software Engineer, M, Glasower Strabe, 28, 13349 Berlin, Germany,^{presentlyR/o.H.No.49-12812,Chinthal} Kalpana Society, Ganshnagar, Hyderabad.

¶30

......Petitioner/ Accused No.1

¶31

And

¶32

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by^{its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the} State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶33

tshukya Sangeetha, W/o. Amgoth Shiva Ram^{PrasadNaik,Aged about 27} years, Occ. Housewife, Kothagudem Town and Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District.

¶34

... RESPON D E NTS/COM PLAI NANTS

¶35

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{HighCourt may} be pleased to quash the charge sheet dated 1810312021 in C.C. No.807^{of 2021} before lll Additional Judicial First Class ftlagistrate, Kothagudem.

¶36

l.A. NOr 1 Of2Q22

¶37

Petition under Section 151 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^may be pleased to stay all further^proceedings in C.C. No.8O7 of 2021 before lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem.

¶38

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of STi.P.RADHAKRISHNA, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri L.Ravinder, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶39

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶40

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶41

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4836 & 1OS81 OF 20122 COMMON ORDER:

¶42

Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 in criminal petition No.4g36 of 2022 and Petitioner/Al in criminal petition No. 105g I of 2022 are the parents-in-law and husband respectively being prosecuted in the same case, as such, both the petitions are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.

¶43

It is the case of 2"d respondent that she was married to 41 on l8th March, 2017 at Kothagudem Town and at the time of marriage Rs.24.00 lakhs worth stridhan was given. Immediately after marriage the )n'd respondent noticed that the attitude of her husband changed and every day he used to spend time with his friends and come late in the night. when questioned, the husband insisted that Rs.30.00 lakhs additionar dowry should be given to cohabit with her. on 3.d April, 2olz he left for Germany without taking the )nct respondent. Later the 2nd Respondeint went to Germany and joined A l. [n Germany also the husband and the 2.d respondent did not lead normal marital life, however on 3.d December 2017, A1 beat the 2"rr respondent, took her jewelry and sent her to India.

¶44

¶45

: I: 1I i t :l 2 :I 1 , i i i

¶46

: i: ir : ;, I j { I i i rl

¶47

: : i; ,i j, i il

¶48

Aggrieved by the harassment of her husband and in-laws demanding additional dowry of Rs.30.00 lakhs, the 2"d respondent filed a written complaint with the police on 26th February, 2021. Having registered the said complaint, police concluded investigation and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 2"rr respondent has filed for divorce and also case under the DVC Act. There is material suppression of facts by the )rtd respondent about the agreement that was entered into in between A1 and the 2"cl respondent on 25u, December 2017. In accordance with the said agreement Rs.32.00 lakhs was agreed to be given to the 2na respondent out of which an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs were deposited into the account of the 2'd respondent. Suppressing the said issue and settlement in between the parties, false complaint was made by the 2"d respondent only to harass the husband and her in-lar.vs. He relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme

¶50

¶51

Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal [(1991) 2 SCJ 3s 1l

¶52

On the other .hand, it was argued on behalf of the 2nd respondent that though there was an agreement, the petitioners failed to adhere to the conditions of the agreement and since there was continuous harassment both in India and also when she joined the husband in Germany, proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners filed the agreement dated 25tr' December 2or7 and also proof of depositing Rs.15.00 lakhs into complainant's account. The complaint filed under the DVC Act and aiso the divorce petition are filed along with the material papers. As seen from the petitions filed for the maintenance ancl also divorce, the main allegation appears to be that the A1 is impotent. The 2nd respondent requested the Family Court to grant divorce on the basis of impotency of A1.

¶54

The 2na respondent had deliberately suppressed the allegation of

¶55

A- 1 not able to lead a normal marital life for the reason of

¶56

impotency. Further the agreement that was entered into in between the parties on 25th December 2017 and also taking an amount of

¶57

¶58

Rs.15.00 lakhs for the purpose of filing an application by the lno respondent were suppressed. The main allegation in the DVC complaint and also the divorce application filed by the 2nd respondent is that A1 was impotent and the marriage never consummated. The differences that arose in betu,een the spouses was for the reason of the alleged impotency of A 1 . The said fact is also suppressed by the 2"d respondent in the complaint and the investigation does not reveal that it was mentioned either by the J"a respondent or any of the relatives of the 2"d respondent that A1 was impotent. However the criminal complaint reads that for the reason of demand of Rs.30.00 lakhs additional dowry, A1 did not lead marital life with the 2nd respondent. Both the versions are contradictory. Except stating that demand of Rs.30.0o lakhs was made by petitioners in India and also in Germany, there is no other allegation.

¶59

B. As claimed by the 2"0 respondent, if the main allegation is impotecy of A1, unable to lead normal life with ths lrrd respondent, the question of demanding additional dowry of Rs.30.00 lakhs is highly improbable. Further, the agreement which u,as entered into on 25.12.2017 specilically states that A1 cannot perform sexual acts. It is further mentioned that both the parties harre agreed to

I : i I :

cancel their marriage and obtain divorce. There are seven witnesses who are parties to the said agreement. As already stated when the parties have determined to end their marriage and the^2"a respondent accepting an amount of Rs.32.00 lakhs as permanent alimony and having received part of the amount, the allegation that the petitioners were harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.30.00 lakhs cannot be believed.

¶65

¶66

Both for the reasons of suppressing material facts in the complainant and also the improbability of the allegations made in the complaint regarding demand of additional dowry, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings. However, it is informed to the Court that the remaining balance in accordance with the MOU entered to in between the parties r.r,ould be paid. The said aspect is also considered by this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the remaining ba-lance would be paid within a period of eight weeks.

¶67

In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A6 in C.C.No.807 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, are herebl, quashed

¶68

¶69

Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are allowed.

¶70

consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed

ANSARI

/TRUE COPY/

SECTION^OFFICER

,o ,,. The ,r Additionar Judiciar-First crass Magistralg, Kothagudem.

¶77

one cc^{to Si'F'ri;Jh' Kiiihn''Advocate[oPuc]}

¶78

One^{CC to 5ii t-'ni'inoer' Advocate IOPUCI} 4. Two^{CCsto the Public pr.o'""iI;'ilUicotiI.tfor the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶79

Two^{CD CoPies}

Kj. I/

HIGH COURT

DATED:10 t03t2023

, _r,,7.. $T.rr''i tj
ry
:1 tt T,i$ TJIB
4.-

¶87

ORDER

¶88

CRLP.Nos.4B36 and 10581 of 2OZ2

¶89

GRL.Ps tS ALLOWED.

¶90

Amgoth Raju Naik v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amgoth Raju Naik v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tunuguntla Naresh Kumar , Kumar Shp Veera Narayana Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

Tunuguntla Naresh Kumar , Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Tunuguntla Naresh Kumar , Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Gottipati Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Karlapudi Babu Prakash Vs State of Telangana and another

Karlapudi Babu Prakash Vs State of Telangana and another