Allowed

Karri Laxman Rao and another v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC14 Mar 2023CRLP/5604/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings in a dowry harassment case filed against a husband and father-in-law. The court held that allegations against the father-in-law were vague and unsupported, and the mother-in-law could be charged for cheating as she acted for property purchase. Section 188 Cr.P.C bar did not preclude inquiry as it was not in India. Proceedings against father-in-law were quashed; t

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings in C.C.No.137 of 2021 against the second petitioner (Karri Laxman Rao) for offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.

Karri Laxman Rao and another Vs The State of Telangana… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE TIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 55O4 OF 2fJ22

¶6

Between:

¶7

Karri Laxman Rao S/o K.Sundar Rao

¶8

Karri Sundar Rao S/o Suryanarayana

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos. 1 and 2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of ludicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana through Gachibowli Police Station.

¶12

Padma Rawal W/o Laxman Rao Karri Occ: Private Employee r/o E1 Apt, Little Ton Road, Troy Gardens,, Parsipany , New Jersy-07054..

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

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 CC No. 137 of 2021 on^, the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, as there is no prima facie case made out against the^petitioners herein.

¶15

I.A. NO:1 OF 2022

¶16

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 of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners pursuant to on the file oF the V Additional lunior civil ludge cum XIII Metropolitan Magistrate^at Kukatpally.

¶17

This P3titi(, r coming on for hearing, ut,(,r't perusing the Memorandum or' ;rounds oF Criminal Petition and tp:on hearing the arguments of Sri Puruhuta Lodha, Advocate for .lr:^petitioner and the Public Prosec:u or (TG/AP) on behalf of the Responrlent \o. 1 and Sri T.Jayant laisc or'/i Advocate for the Respondent No.2..

¶18

The Court made lre following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ICSI,'RENDER

¶20

CRIMNAL PETHON No.56O4 OF2U22

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Petition is hled to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.137 of 2027 on the hle of V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally for the offences under Sections 498-A, 4O3, 406, 42O IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶23

The 2"d respondent is the wife of lst petitioner/A1, hled a complaint stating that she was married to A1 on O4.I2.2O19. She was resident of US and also residing in India. A1 after proposal of marriage, has taken amount from the 2nd respondent and also A1 assured to take care of the 2nd respondent. The marriage expenditure was also incurred by her. The 2"d petitioner, who is the father-in-law has taken her gold worth Rs.2O.OO lakhs and mortgaged the said gold. In all, the 2"d respondent incurred arr amount of Rs.8O.OO lakhs on the petitioners' family. Having received the complaint, the police investigated \ case and found that the loans were

¶24

¶25

taken altr:r rr rrtgaging go1d, for the purp,rsr: c l lturchastng a flat. Thc gol. uras mortgaged in Muth:ro: ;itance. Some amounl \ as ir s.r paicl by the 2nd respondent to llrc rruilder. A1 was abusive nd harassed the 2"a respondent r,hysically and mentall.r,. Ftrr: he r. 1.r petitioner was gaml;litr13 _ nli ee. Ha'ing recei-"'ecl lhe -,nplaint, the police investiqate:cl [he casc and fiied charge .i.reet against the petitioners 1 and 2 lor the Sections^.t9t- .,4O3,406.420 IpC and Sections; 3, zl ancl 6 of Dor.t ry Prr,hib ion Acl .

¶26

3 Lear-rerl :.unser ror the petitioner w.tLrcr slrbmit that since ofl-e_-rse r lleged rvas committed outsicle lrLri ia1, ths.. i. a bar under S:r. ion 188 of Cr.p.C from invr,stLg,€1.rng/enquiring into the s;rid ir l.gations and also the Court is pr,thibiteci from taking <:ogni,tr r<:e. uniess sanction is takc n frrr: r t.-ie centrai Governme nt. tc proceedings are illegal arrd setr e ,tar.e to be quashecl. Fur ter, the allegations of transfer of mcney from the 2"d t'e ipol ) 1t:nt to A 1 can,ot be made b:rl;is; to prosecute them and it n,ill not in anv manner imcrrrrt :o cruelbv

¶27

¶28

punishable under Section 498-4 of IPC. For the said reasons also, proceedings have to be quashed.

¶29

On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that money was taken by the petitioners and the l"t petitioner was gambling by indulging in cricket betting. The 2"d respondent was harassed for money and her amount was in fact misappropriated by the petitioners. In the said circumstances, the petitioners have to face trial and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶30

The 2"d respondent is a divorcee and was residing in the US. The 1"t petitioner with a fond hope of settiing in US has married her. The transactions regarding the money which was given or the money taken by pledging^jewellery is for the purpose of purchase of the property. The money was transferred in favour of A I .

¶31

The 2.d petitioner, who is the father of A1, allegedly piedged the goid with Muthoot Finance and having taken money, gave it for purchase of the^property. It cannot be said that the amount was misappropriated by the 2"d respondent or

¶32

¶33

committeci ac ()f cheating. When the jeweller, rvas pledged, money ',va s 1al en for the purpose of purchase ol th,: property, which w-ar; be rg purchased lor Al and the 2,(r l'rjpc,.clent, the 2"d pedtior r( cannot be charged fcr lti, rtlfence of misapprooria on or cheating. Admittedl,,, l\ t a,r-rd the 2,a respondent's ,r()re hghting regarding mon,ly. ,\ r orrLplaint was also lodgr'd r,, bre the Parsippar-ry police, Neu. ,J:l serz.

¶34

The a.1,,3zLtion against A2 is that he h;rd demanded moncJ' tor,,,ar [s :Lddrtional dorvry. Exccp. ma[.: ng such bald allegatrorr itll rinst 2"d respond entl A2, [hr:r e arc no other instetnr:er; ',r,i i<:h are narrated against thr: ,)nri petitioner. Admittedl)' r'l a,d 2"'t respondent stayed in trrt US ancl there were diflerr:ri :es betrveen them. The mo.re.r 1r. rns.actions are aiso bctv.,een L.e 21.\d respondent a',d 1"t pctiricrrrtr/A1, w.ho are r.rrife and htrs rand.

¶35

In Kahl ashan Kausar (al Sonam and ot b.r,,rs v. State of Bihar l(20 2 , I 6 Supreme Court Cases 59!) . _he Honble Suprcmr: Cc1.rt held that unless there ar,: spec:t hc and distinct allegatiotrs .gainst the accused, the pro::r dirtgs can be

I I

i l

quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus a-llegations.

¶40

The Honble Supreme Court in the case of PreetiGuptav.

¶41

State of Jharkhand [(20 10) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.

¶42

\ \

¶43

In the said circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against father-in-1aw/A2 against whom vague allegations are made regarding additional dowry. Further, amount or the jewellery of the 2nd respondent were in fact given to the builder lor purchase of property, for which reason, the question of cheating and crimina-l misappropriation against A2, does not arise.

¶44

1 1 . ln the result, proceedings against A2 l2"a petitioner in C.C.No. 137 of 2021 on the hle of V Additional Junior Civil

¶45

¶46

Judge-curn ,\ II Metropolitan Magistrate a1, l(., rka,tpall-v, al'e

¶47

herebv qrras;t C

¶48