Partly allowed

Syed Nayeemulla and 3 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC1 Oct 2024CRLP/1381/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In-laws of a wife sought quashing of dowry-harassment proceedings. Relying on Kahkashan Kausar, the court found only vague allegations against the father-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband, and quashed proceedings against them; the mother-in-law had specific dowry-demand allegations, so her case proceeded to trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of C.C.No.9141/2022 against petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 (accused Nos.2, 4 and 5); petition dismissed against petitioner No.2/accused No.3.

Syed Nayeemulla and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1381 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Syed Nayeemulla, S/o Late S.Mir Obedulla, Aged about 59 years, D.No 184, 1Oth Cross, Occ: business Shivaji Road, N,R.Mohalla, Mysuru, Karnataka570001.

¶9

PETITIONER NO.1/A2

¶10

Smt Nusharat Nayeem, Wo Syed Nayeemulla Aged about 52^years, D.No 184, 1Oth Cross, Occ: House wife, ShivajiRoad, N.R.Mohalla, Mysuru Karnataka-570001 .

¶11

PETITIONER NO.2/A3

¶12

Dr.Syed Afshan Nayeem, D/o. Farman Ali, Aged about 33^years, R/o No 66/7, 4th Floor, Occ: house wife, No TF-302, MDM Road, Fraser Town, Pulikeshi Nagara, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560005.

¶13

PETITIONER NO.3/A4

¶14

Farman Ali, S/o. Shabbir Ali, Aged about 36^years, R/o No 66/7, 4th Floor, Occ: business No TF-302, MDM Road, Fraser Town, Pulikeshi Nagara, Bengaluru' Karnataka-560005

¶15

...pETrroNER No.4/A5

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad

¶18

Smt.Syeda Nida Masarath, D/o Syed Rahamath Bari, Aged about 25^years, Rl/o plat No 102,^'East Marvel' Jana Chaitanya Colony, Upprpalli, Hyderabad, Telangana-500030

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 call for records and quash the entire^{proceedings in} C.C.No.9141/2022 now^pending on the file of the Learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad for the offence^punishable under Sections 498-A, and 406 IPC and 3 and 4 of D.P. Act., in so far as the^petitioners are concerned.

¶21

l.A. NCt: 2 OF 2023

¶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 stay all proceedings in C.C. No.9141 of 2022 on the file of the Xlll Additic,nal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Mahila Court, Hyderabad in respect to the petitioners/ A2 to 44.

¶23

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2023

¶24

Between:

¶25

Smt.Syeda Nida Masarath, D/o Syed Rahamath Bari, Aged about 25 years, R/o plat No 102, 'East Marvel' Jana Chaitanya Colony, Upprpalli, Hyderabad, Telangana-500030

¶26

AND

¶27

Syed Nayeemulla, S/o Late S.Mir Obedulla, Aged about 59 years, D.No 184, 1Oth Cross, Occ: business Shivaji Road, N.R.Mohalla, Mysuru, Karnataka570001.

¶28

Smt Nusharat Nayeem, Wo Syed Nayeemulla Aged about 52 years, D.No 1 84, 1Oth Cross, Occ: House wife, ShivajiRoad, N.R.Mohalla, Mysuru Karnataka-570001 .

¶29

Dr.Syed Afshan Nayeem, D/o. Farman Ali, Aged about 33 years, R/o No 66l/, 4th Floor, Occ: house wife, No TF-302, MDM Road, Fraser Town, Pulikeshi Nagara, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560005.

¶30

Farman Ali, S/o. Shabbir Ali, Aged about 36 years, R/o No 667, 4th Floor, Occ: business No TF-302, MDM Road, Fraser Town, Pulikeshi Nagara, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560005.

¶31

The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad

¶32

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶33

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in Crl.P.no. 138112023 and consequently dismiss the Crl.P. 138112023 in the interest of the justice.

¶34

¶35

l.A. NO: 5 OF 2023

¶36

Petition under Section 482^{of Cr.P.C., prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to extend the lnterim Stay order^{daled0910212023in l.A.No. 2 ot 2023} in Crl.P.No. 1381 of 2023 beyond^{1511112023to until further orders by this} Hon'ble Court.

¶37

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G RAVI} MOHAN, representing SRI GORIGE^{NARESH KUMAR,Advocate for the} petitioners and the public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behali of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri C.SHARAN^{REDDY, Advocatefor the Respondent} No.2.

¶38

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶39

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶41

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1381 OF 2023

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

This Criminal Petition has been Iiled, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), by the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 5, who are parents, sister and brolher-in-law of accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings agarnst them in C.C.No.9141 of 2022 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Mahila CotLrt, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 oll the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶44

The brief history of the case is that one Mrs.Syeda Nida Masarath has lodged a report before the police on 31.05.2022 stating that her marriage was performed with one Mr.Syed Yaseen Nihal (accused No.l) on22.02.2022 at Mysore and at the time of marriage, on demand, her parents gave a sum of Rs.23,0O,O0O/- cash, 30 tulas of gold and house-hold articles, worth Rs.25,OO,0OO/- to accused No. I towards dowry. Her parents have spent Rs.5,0O,000/- towards marriage expenses. Immediately, after the marriage accused No. I and his parents

¶45

¶46

demanded the de facto complainant for additional dowry^of Rs.5O,OO,0OO/- for purchasing the plot at^{Hyderabad.Accused} No.1 used to suspect her fidelity and^{pressurizeher to visit the} Gynaecologist to confirm her virginity.^{AccusedNo. I used to give} sleeping pills to her stating that she is mentally^{unstable. But,} accused No. 1 is suffering from^{mental ill-health and he forcedher} to tie her hands and legs to^{performsexualacts. Whilethe things} stood thus, on 27.03.2O22^{tirre de} facto^{complainant,accused} No 1, petitioner No.2-mother-in-1aw and^{others visited her} cousin's house at Nizamabad^{whereinpetitionerNo.2-mother-in-} law told that she had^{given one Crore rupees to her son-in-law} thereby he became Surgeon and on^{that pretext, she demanded} the parents of the de facto complainant^{to give additional dowry} of Rs.5O,O0,0O0/- to start business^{by accusedNo.1 at} Qatar.^By showing one or the other^{reason, accusedNo. 1 and his family} used to threaten her to^give divorce and^{that they also used to} abuse the de facto complainant and^{herparents in} unparliamentary. language. Further,^{petitioner No.3 used to} advise the de facto complainant to^{give divorce to accusedNo' 1} and search for another man as accused^{No. 1 is very arrogant and} rude. The de facto complainant bear^{all the ill-treatment meted} out by her in the hands of the^{accusedwith a fond hope that they}

¶47

I
I
I

¶48

¶49

would mend their behaviour towards her, but it was in vain. As there was no other go and owing to her inability to fulfil the demands of the accused, she took shelter at the house of maternal uncle at Mehdipatnam. With the acts of the accused, the de facto complainant has undergone mental trauma and agony.

¶50

The case of the petitioners is that the relation between the de facto complainant and the accused is that accused No.l is the husband, accused No.2 is the father-in-1aw, accused No.3 is the mother-in-law, accused No.4 is the sister-in-law and accused No.5 is the husband of accused No.4. The petitioners are innocent and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the de facto complainant. Even accepted the allegations made in the complaint in toto, there are no reasonable grounds to believe ttrat the petitioners are guilty for the allegations made against them. Though they have never interfered with the family affairs of accused No. 1 and tlne de facto complatnant, knowing fully that they have nothing to do with the present case, only on vague and omnibus allegations, they have been lugged in the crime only to harass them adopting this method to dominate in her matrimonial home. The registration, investigation thereof and

¶51

¶52

¶53

continuation of further^{proceedings are all illega1and abuse of} process of law. Learned counsel^{for the petitionershas placed} reliance on Stote of Haragana^{o.BhaJan LaU and} Kahkashan Kausor @Sono:rm^{a. State of BthaP.}

¶54

Heard Mr.G.Ravi Mohan,^{learned Senior Counsel} representing Mr.G.Naresh^{Kumar,learned counselfor the} petitioners and Mr.C.Sharan^{Reddy,learned counsel for} respondent No.2 and^{perusedthe record.}

¶55

Learned counsel for the^{petitionerswould submitthat after} tJre marriage the de facto^{complainant and accusedNo.1 went to} the house of her^{parents and accused No.l stayedupto} 13.04.2022 in the house of her^{parents, later, he went to Qatar} and that there is no occasion^{to them to stay with the de} facto complainant. Whereas, the^de facto^{compldnantalleged that on} 13.04.2022 she went to Mysore^{to join her husband but at that} point of time, accused No.l went to Qatar.^{Except vague and} omnibus allegations, there^{are no specificallegations against ttre} petitioners. Therefore, prays this Court to^{quash the proceedings}

¶56

against the petitioners.

¶57

1 AIR 1992 sc 604

¶58

'?^{(2022) 6 SupremeCourt Cases599.}

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there are clear allegations against all the petitioners, especially, petitioner No.2-mother-in-la1av insisted the de facto complainant to^go for second marriage as her son was adamant in nature and he did not change his behaviour and that she also abused t}le de facto complainant and her family members in filthy language. Therefore, it requires full-fledged trial and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶63

As could be seen from the material available on record, it unfolds that the petitioners are the family members of the husband of the de facto complatnant i.e., in-laws, sister-in-law and husband of the sister-in-law and that the allegations made against these petitioners are that they all used to abuse her and torture her. The investigation done by the police reveals that right from the date of marriage, accused Nos.1 and 3 have demanded t}:.e de facto complainant to bring additional dowry from the house of her parents and that accused No.l used to suspect her fidelity and asked her to visit the Gynaecologist to confirm her virginity and that he used to force her for sexual intercourse by tying her hands and legs.

¶64

¶65

¶66

B. ln Kahkoshan Kausor^(supral, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶67

was pleased to observe as follows:

¶68

"... 17. The above-mentioned decisions^{clearly demonstrate} that this court has at numerous instarces^{expresseCconcernover} the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased^{tendency of} implicating relatives of the husbald in matrimonial^disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of^{a trial on the} complainant as well as the accused. It is furtier^{manifest from the} said^judgments that false implication by way of^{general omnibus} allegations made in tJle course of matrimonial^{dispute,ifleft} unchecked would result in misuse of the^process of^{law. Therefore,} this court by way of its^{judgments has warned the courts from} proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of tlte hustrand^when no prima facie case is made out against them.

¶69

Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances,^{basedon separate} tralsactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the inlaws of the Respondent^{wife.Allowing} prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would sinply result in an abuse^of the^{process of law.}

¶70

Therefore, upon consi.deration of the^relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific rote^{attributed to} tie accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants^are forced to go through the tribulations of a tria-I, i.e.,^{general and} omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation^wherethe relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial' It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that^a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquitta-l also inflicts^severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore^be discouraged,.,."

¶71

¶72

On the face of the record, there are no specilic allegations made out against petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 by the de facto complainant either in the complaint lodged before the police or in her detailed statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. However, when coming to the case of petitioner No.2-mother-inlar', the de facto complainant has alleged that her mother-in-law used to abuse her and her family members in unparliam".r,ury j language and she made demands for want of additional dowry for starting business by her son (accused No. 1) in Qatar and also for purchasing plot in Hyderabad and that she told her to leave his son and search for another man. The allegations levelled against pedtioner No.2 make out pir.11a facie case and the truth or otherwise would be made out only after full-fledged trial.

¶73

By relying on the above referred legal proposition and in yie:w of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is liable to be allowed as against petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 a-r.d the Criminal Petition is dismissed against petitioner No.2/accused No.3.

¶74

1l . In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed partly, qtrashing the proceedings in C.C.No.9141 of 2022 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampa1ly,

¶75

¶76

Mahila Court, Hyderabad, against petitioner Nos. 1, 3 ald 4/accused Nos.2, 4 and 5. The Criminal Petition as against petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is dismissed.

¶77

€'

¶78

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand

¶79

closed.

¶80

Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT GISTRAR

¶81

//TRUE COPY//

¶82

¶83