Allowed

Mohd Abdul Rawoof , Mohammed Abdul Rauf, And 3 Others v. The State of Telangana, And Another

Telangana HC21 Mar 2023CRLP/8894/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for dowry harassment. The court observed the marriage had lasted only three days before a mutual consent divorce, making allegations of prolonged harassment improbable, and noted the parties had remarried.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions allowed and proceedings against petitioners in C.C. No. 5754 of 2019 and FIR No. 443 of 2010 quashed.

Mohd Abdul Rawoof , Mohammed Abdul Rauf, And 3 Others Vs… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132511

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR-THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IUES?AY ,THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWo rHousAND AND rwelrrv rHnEe '"',

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETtTloNNOs:7480F2023 and 8894 an d 9754 of 2021

¶6

CRL PNO :748 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

trtrq?#,i,;tt,,#ii}i",,#L11*itffi Hfjl#ir,:l:iffi^{,ffi,tr j} AND ...PET|T|ONER/ACCUSED No.l

¶9

...PET|T|ONER/ACCUSED No.l

¶10

;$ff ri{irti.xitsflfrfl,tiffi [f,,*t]Hii#"x?",rr?:,il1?,si?"

¶11

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶12

Petition under Sect. stateo in in u u#;;;.il; :i ""iii.:: SiSj[' i::,J:i1,T"i,,,.1 ll ;,.J: X [:?T: ,;ffi ,1,;$,",,,;i;*;:tfiJ j!:Jfu llffJft ii.fll"ti.*r,:?T:fl

¶13

I.A. NO:1OF 2023

¶14

Petition under Sect. ;l:::1r.:^ie"#Hy":ie1ii,:!:iffri:lH!,,*:,;:lt;,"J:;r,J"?T: Aaar. Cni"r-rii?t;;;i#Lt19_ceedinss^{in c.c.No.s7s4 or 2o1e} """^{tn" rir"'"iirrr} No.6. _-.yrv,,as,,,,iagrstrate, atHyderabad against,n" p"iiti"."jt"lJ"o

¶15

CRL P. NO:88 94 0F 2021

¶16

Between:

¶17

¶18

ffiffi i,,'"-t?,Thf,#i,#ffi^:$::H,+qhfl ft ,T:',ff nriJn:Hl

¶19

¶20

AND

¶21

...PETtiloNERs/AccusED No.2 to S

¶22

;$ffi ,'fl8r1j;rfli;p,{lU;f}.{,{i"li;.'Tli.fr il[ll#,?i#r."rnxr,"

¶23

... RESPoNDE NTs/coMPLAINANT

¶24

petition under Section ^4g2^{of Cr.p.Cpraying.that rn the} circumstances stated in the Memorandum or crornos ii bit,il"i,p"tition. the High Court ,ry o" preased to Quash the nrogssf,ing. in c.c.r'ro.iit 4.12019 0n the Fire of x* Addr chief Merropotitan Magistrate uyit"irniol.i"",iliin" petitioners No.2 to 5.

¶25

I.A. NO:1O F 2021

¶26

Petition under Section ^4g2^{of Cr.p.Cprayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of.crounis "i biiiifiii]l,ition. rhe High court mav be pleased to dispense with rhe riring ot the cIrtffii:;, of cc No.s75 4 of 2019 on the fite of xll aaar . 66;ji M;d;;iiH ""fiasistrare at asainsr the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to s, p""oi.J jiJp."o.li'or i'i" rvrrin euash petition

¶27

I.A. NO:2OF 2021

¶28

petitron under Section :g2 o: Cr.p.C praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or criminai petition, the High court may be pleased to stay a' further proceedings in c.c. No.5754/201 I on the Fire of x, Masiskat", iyou,"i"i in.]roing the appearanc" o, iiu ffiI,j.::J il".lgoitan

¶29

CRLP. NO :9754 oF 2021

¶30

Between:

¶31

1 tr#;;*r,T,,ffi^-l;i;]ffi ,ltf:TeyHi.fi,^jTfi ril/sr"ri;jfi

¶32

AND

¶33

...PET|T|oNER/ACCUSED No.1

¶34

1' The state of rerangana' Rep by its pubric prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad

¶35

2' Smt sabiha Fatima. wlg {vrqhd. KharidAhmed siddiqui, Aged 31 vrs, occ. House wife, H. No e-4-86/i 37, Satar1rrs cJ"ry,'iii;niil[i, uyaeraoao. ...RESPONDE NTS/COMPLAINANT

¶36

Petition under Section ^482 of Cr.p.C praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or criminat ietition, the High court mav be pleased to euash the oroceedings in cr.No.44itzoro ". ii. rii"'"I'p s Charminar, Hyderabad, against tne pletitioneile""r""i ruo. r

¶37

I.A. NO:2 oF 2021

¶38

Petition under section laz o! cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of.Grounds ot criminai'peiition, the iign c"r;;lvi" pleased ro direct the registry to ^ ""rry^{ori itr-u ,m"norunt in the crrp} No.9754t202.1 atong with i1,..rir rygrli6Zi-iy''i"rrittins to carry out the amendment in the oraver and the petition inio # ,! ,,,on the file of the pS wps DD CCS ,at Hyderabad, instead of on tn" ni. oi tt" F-S Ct rr.ina, Hyderabad.,,

¶39

l.A. NO:'l oF 2021

¶40

Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds "r ci-il.r'p"iition, the High court mav be pleased to stay ail further proceedings in cr.io.iqztzOlo on the Fire of p.s charminar' Hyderabad hcrudinj "Lr""riio."^- "r^{NBWs againstthe} ffitJt:"rfflf*'sed No'1 on the File or iiiril;i. chier Merroporitan Masisrrate,

¶41

I.A. NO:1OF 2023

¶42

Petition under section 4g2 0t cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be !l:T"9^{to directthe registry to carryout the} a..ndment in cr1.p.No.9754 of 2021 along with I.A.No.1 of 2021 by permitting t" ""rrv out the amendment in the prayer and the petition in so far as,',c.c.No.Si54 0f 2oTgon the fire of X, Addr. chief Metroporitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad" instead of ,,crime No.443 0f 2010 dated 11-08-2010 of p.S WpS, DD, CCS, at fryOer"iao,,,

¶43

^ This^petition coming on .for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of 9l9rld.^{of A, Criminat petition and Jpon} ;J;n the arguments of Sri p VAMSHEEDHAR REDD', Advocate foi ttre all petitioner,s and the pubtic Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 in a, criminar petitions and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2 in all Criminal petition,s The Courr made the foilowing: COMMON Oil;i^-'

¶44

¶45

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶47

CRIMINAL P ON os.748 oF 2023 nd 8894 and 97 4 2021

¶48

MM ORDER

¶49

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.p.C.,) by the petitioners to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.443 of 2010 on the file of Women^police Station, DD, CCS, Hyderabad and in C.C.No.5754 of 2019 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed for the offence punishable under Sections 498-4, 406 rlw 120-b of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of

¶50

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short "Dp Act").

¶51

Since the parties in all the criminal petitions are one and

¶52

the same, they are heard together and disposed of by way of

this common order.

3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public prosecutor for the respondent State. Perused the material on record.

¶57

.'.,

¶58

The brief facts of the case that on 22.07.2010, the marriage of 2nd respondent was performed with A1. A2 and 43 are parents and A4 is sister of A1, A5 is the husban d of A4 and 46 is the brother of A1. At the time of marriage, ceftain dowry was given and after marriage, the 2nd respondent joined A1 and his parents in their house. However, on 23.07.2010 there was a condition that unless Maruthi Car was given before Valima dinner, they wiil sent out the 2nd respondent from their house. On 24.07.2010, Valima reception was arranged, the accused was forced to send out the 2nd respondent by taking cheque which was given towards Meher. Though, there were mediations to setUe the issue, there was no consensus between the parties and eula divorce (mutual consent) was obtained. Thereafter, on 03.08.2010, a private complaint was filed in Central Crime Statiofi ?yderabad and the police fited

¶59

¶60

¶61

charge sheet in the year 2019 and the same is numbered as C.C.No.5754 of 2019 before the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who has taken cognizance of the offence against the A1 to 46 under Sections 498-A, 406 rlw 120-b of Indian Penal Code (for short tpC') and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1956,

¶62

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that allegation there was a demand for dowry when the 2nd respondent stayed for 3 days cannot be believed. The question of petitioners herein harassing her does not arise. Affidavit was filed before the Kazi for obtaining Qula divorce which is by mutual consent. The 2nd respondent has signed on the affidavit stating that she has nothing to do with the petitioners and on her own consent, she has sought divorce. The affidavits filed in respect of Qula divorce along with translation are filed. In the said circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioners have to be quashed.

¶63

"^q.;.4

¶64

¶65

Admittedly, there was a dispute in the household which led to the parties taking divorce by mutual consent within four days of the marriage and the respondent No.2 again married on 01.11.2012 and A1 was also married and now living with his wife and three children.

¶66

The marriage happened in the year 2010 and within three days mutual consent divorce was taken by the parties. After dissolution of the marriage, the present complaint was filed. In the complaint it is mentioned that there was a demand for Maruthi Car, for which reason there was altercation in between the parties appears to be highly improbable and within three days the respondent No.2 was to subjected to cruelty. It is mentioned in the complaint that ceftain jewellery was taken but the same was not returned by the accused. However, the 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit before the Kazi seeking mutual consent divorce and specifically mentioned that there is no due from the petitioners.

¶67

¶68

(

¶69

In view of the marriage being dissolved within four days and thereafter the pafties have setUed in their lives, no useful purpose would be served to permit the proceedings to go on against the petitioners/accused both on the ground of the delay in filing the charge sheet and also for the reason of none of the ingredients being made out from the complaint and statements of the witnesses.

¶70

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and proceedings against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶71

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶72

closed.

¶73

To,

¶74

Sd/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶75

SECTION OFFICER

¶76

¶77

The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶78

The Station House Officer, WpS, DD, CCS, police Station, Hyderabad.

¶79

The Station House Officer, CCS potice Station, Hyderabad.

¶80

Two cc to the Public P Hyderabad [ouTJ 'rosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at

¶81

One CC to Sri p. Vamsh eedhar Reddy, Advocate topucl

¶82

Two cD copies

HIGH COURT

KS, J

DATEO:21t0312023

'ir- <br>it(
t 1 [?\ N13
i .'lt
\l'l"<br>-)-:-;.--- , . , - ---

¶88

ORDER

¶89

CRLP.No.748 ol 2023 AND 8894 AND 9754 OF 2021

¶90

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶91

.-, )
u"
<br>1)

Mohd Abdul Rawoof , Mohammed Abdul Rauf, And 3 Others v. The State of Telangana, And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Abdul Rawoof , Mohammed Abdul Rauf, And 3 Others v. The State of Telangana, And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janga Raghava Reddy Vs Thangellapally Sammaiah and Another

Sreenidhi Townships Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana and Another

G Surendar , Surender Amba Das Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Ibrahim Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Vuppala Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana And Another

N Mohan Vs The State of Telangana