AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in C.C. No. 6251 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
The petitioner/Accused is the husband of respondent No.3/de facto complainant and facing accusations for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(DP Act), in the aforesaid Calendar Case.
Heard Mr. S. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State and also respondent No.3/de facto complainant, who appeared in person.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage between the de facto complainant and the petitioner/accused was solemnized on 27.04.2008 at Khammam in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. From the inception of the marriage, the petitioner allegedly subjected her to physical, mental, emotional, economic and sexual cruelty. He is alleged to have been a habitual drinker, maintained illicit relationships with other women, frequently visited bars, compelled her to watch pornographic material, and abused her in vulgar language.
It is further alleged that, prior to the marriage, the petitioner concealed that he was suffering from a venereal disease and had metal rods implanted in his body, and that he failed to discharge his marital obligations. After the de facto complainant took voluntary retirement in 2016, the petitioner allegedly compelled her to part with Rs.10,00,000/- from her retirement benefits and savings during 2016-2018 and thereafter, demanded a further sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for renovation of his property. Upon her refusal, he allegedly harassed and assaulted her, including by pulling her hair. She also alleged that he deserted her, resided with other women and engaged in illegal and immoral activities. On the basis of her complaint, Crime No. 47 of 2019 was registered by the Women Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act, 1961. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal petition has been filed seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/Accused.
The marriage was subsequently dissolved by decree of divorce dated 30.12.2021 in O.P. No. 588 of 2019 by the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which also awarded permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- to the de facto complainant.
On 19.01.2022, she lodged another complaint alleging that, even after dissolution of the marriage, the petitioner continued to harass and intimidate her by repeated phone calls, WhatsApp messages, text messages and e-mails, demanding withdrawal of the cases instituted against him. She further alleged that he used abusive language, threatened her with dire consequences, followed her movements and subjected her to persistent mental harassment and intimidation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint and charge-sheet contain vague, omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations without specifying the dates, places or individual overt acts constituting cruelty or dowry demand and, therefore, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It was further contended that the statements recorded during investigation are stereotyped and unsupported by independent corroboration; that the allegations concerning illicit relationships and concealment of venereal disease lack particulars, medical evidence or other supporting material; and that there is no allegation of entrustment or unlawful demand constituting dowry. The petitioner also relied upon the de facto complainant's alleged admission in the matrimonial proceedings that the parties had been living separately since August 2016, contending that the subsequent allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are inherently improbable.
Learned counsel further contended that the complaint was lodged after unexplained delay and that the alleged demands of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant's retirement benefits and savings and Rs.25,00,000/- for property renovation, made nearly ten years after the marriage, are inherently improbable and unsupported by contemporaneous material. It was submitted that, in any event, the demands were unconnected with the marriage and, therefore, could not constitute dowry. Regarding the property, the petitioner contended that the house was jointly purchased and constructed with approximately Rs.60,00,000/- invested from his earnings pursuant to an agreement executed in 2018. According to him, the de facto complainant acknowledged liability to repay Rs.10,00,000/-, repaid Rs.5,15,000/-, and agreed to transfer an undivided half share in the property after discharge of the house loan. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that the financial transaction had been subsequently portrayed as an additional dowry demand. It was also contended that the de facto complainant introduced allegations not forming part of the FIR or charge-sheet. The petitioner further alleged that she had contracted an earlier marriage without obtaining a valid decree of divorce and, by concealing that fact, married him, thereby rendering their marriage void and, consequently, the alleged offences inapplicable.
Learned counsel relied upon Sundar Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 244, to contend that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence. Reliance was also placed on Appasaheb & another v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721, regarding monetary demands unconnected with marriage not constituting dowry; Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 11 SCC 753, and Gangabhavani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal R.C. No.326 of 2005, decided on 16.04.2010, regarding allegations of extramarital relationships or illicit intimacy not, by themselves, attracting Section 498-A IPC absent material showing willful conduct amounting to cruelty; and Suresh Kumar Kamboj v. State of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 13.03.2020), Baburao and others v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 13.12.2021), Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 AIR SC 2836, regarding vague, omnibus and unparticularised allegations unsupported by independent material.
On the basis of these submissions, the petitioner contended that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and sought quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.6251 of 2019.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Respondent No.3/ de facto complainant, appearing in person, opposed the criminal petition, contending that the complaint and charge-sheet disclose a prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that the proceedings ought not to be quashed. Respondent No.3 alleged that, throughout the marriage, the petitioner subjected her to physical, mental, emotional, economic and sexual cruelty; coerced her into parting with Rs.10,00,000/- from her retirement benefits and savings; thereafter demanded Rs.25,00,000/- as dowry; maintained illicit relationships with several women; deserted her; and continued to harass her. She disputed the petitioner's claim that the parties had lived separately since August 2016, asserting that they continued to cohabit until January 2019, including during her stays in Rajasthan and the Philippines.
She further alleged that the petitioner attempted to grab her residential property by forging documents, trespassing into the house and removing valuables and the CCTV/DVR (memory box), in respect of which separate criminal proceedings are pending. Respondent No.3 also relied upon the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, matrimonial and permanent-alimony proceedings, her complaint before the Bar Council, and other civil and criminal cases as demonstrating the continuing nature of the alleged cruelty and harassment. She alleged that even after dissolution of the marriage, the petitioner continued to intimidate and harass her through phone calls, messages, legal notices and repeated litigation. Lastly, she contended that the allegations concerning cruelty, dowry demand, transfer of money, property-related conduct and other disputed matters involve questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings for quashing. She alleged that the petition was filed to delay the trial and avoid prosecution and, accordingly, sought dismissal of the criminal petition.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
A perusal of the charge-sheet discloses specific allegations that, from the inception of the marriage, the petitioner subjected the de facto complainant to physical, mental, emotional, economic and sexual cruelty. It is alleged that he was a habitual drinker, maintained illicit relationships with other women, compelled her to watch pornographic material, sexually harassed and abused her, concealed prior to the marriage that he was suffering from a venereal disease, compelled her to part with Rs.10,00,000/-from her retirement benefits, demanded a further sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for renovation of his property, assaulted her by pulling her hair, and ultimately deserted her. The charge-sheet is based on the statements of the de facto complainant, her mother and uncle, supported by marriage photographs and bank transaction documents.
The scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. At the stage of quashing, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences or whether continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court cannot undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence, determine disputed questions of fact, test the credibility of witnesses, or assess the sufficiency of the evidence for conviction. Reference in this regard may be made to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401.
The statement of the victim, if it prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of the offence, constitutes sufficient material for the prosecution to proceed to trial. The ultimate credibility and evidentiary value of such testimony are matters for trial. In the present case, the allegations regarding the petitioner's illicit relationships, concealment of venereal disease, metal rods in his body, frequent visits to bars and alleged immoral conduct are not supported by independent corroborative material, and the supporting witnesses do not appear to have personally witnessed those acts. These circumstances may affect the evidentiary weight of such allegations, but do not justify their rejection at the threshold.
At the same time, an allegation of an extramarital relationship, by itself does not ipso facto constitute cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. The conduct alleged must satisfy the statutory test of cruelty. The principles stated in Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya and Ganga Bhavani (supra) are, therefore, attracted. Whether the cumulative conduct alleged against the petitioner ultimately constitutes cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC is a matter for determination upon appreciation of evidence.
The allegations concerning the monetary demands stand on a somewhat different footing. The petitioner relies upon an agreement relating to the residential property to contend that the transactions represented investment, repayment or financial arrangements concerning jointly acquired property. Whether the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- and the subsequent demand of Rs.25,00,000/- constituted financial transactions or dowry demands is essentially a disputed question of fact. Such an issue cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, for attracting Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the prosecution must establish the statutory nexus between the demand and the marriage. As held in Appasaheb (supra), a monetary demand arising from financial necessity or domestic expenditure and unconnected with the marriage does not constitute dowry. Therefore, if the evidence ultimately establishes that the demand of Rs.25,00,000/- was solely for renovation of the property or another financial purpose unrelated to the marriage, the requisite ingredients of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act would not be made out. That determination, however, must await trial.
The petitioner's reliance on the alleged delay in lodging the complaint also does not furnish a ground for quashing. The allegations concern matrimonial cruelty allegedly extending over several years, and the parties remained in the marital relationship until its dissolution by decree dated 30.12.2021. The effect of delay upon the credibility or weight of the evidence is a matter for trial. The contention that the marriage was void on account of the de facto complainant's alleged earlier marriage equally involves disputed questions of fact. The parties remained in the matrimonial relationship for a considerable period, and the marriage was subsequently dissolved by the Family Court, which also awarded permanent alimony to the de facto complainant. The competing assertions concerning the validity of the marriage cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations contained in the subsequent complaint dated 19.01.2022 regarding telephone calls, WhatsApp messages, e-mails and intimidation after dissolution of the marriage do not form part of the charge-sheet in the present Calendar Case. They may, if otherwise made out and investigated in accordance with law, give rise to an independent cause of action under the appropriate penal provisions. They are, however, not germane to the determination of whether the present prosecution should be quashed.
The authorities relied upon by the petitioner, including Sundar Babu, Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Rajesh Chaddha (supra), reiterate that vague, omnibus and unparticularised allegations, which fail to disclose the essential ingredients of an offence may warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They do not, however, require quashing merely because the prosecution substantially rests upon the complainant's testimony. The determinative question remains whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. In the present case, the allegations of persistent physical assault, mental harassment, sexual abuse, coercion to part with substantial sums of money and repeated acts of cruelty cannot, at this stage, be characterised as absurd, inherently improbable or devoid of factual foundation. They, therefore, warrant adjudication at trial rather than termination at the threshold. The evidentiary value of the allegations concerning illicit relationships, concealment of disease and immoral conduct, as well as the true nature of the monetary transactions, must likewise be assessed on the basis of legally admissible oral and documentary evidence.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories contemplated in Bhajan Lal warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. The disputed questions of fact and the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence are left open for determination by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. The criminal proceedings shall, therefore, continue in accordance with law.
For the aforesaid, the Criminal Petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all admissible factual and legal defence before the trial Court, which would independently appreciate the evidence uninfluenced by any observations contained in this order and all issues relating to credibility of witnesses, admissibility of documents, existence of cruelty, applicability of the Dowry Prohibition Act are left open and to be decided on the basis of evidence during trial. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.