Praveen Kumar Goud vs State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.359 of 2024, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narayanpet District.

Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

The brief facts of the case are that on 10.04.2023 at 09:00 hours a complaint was received by the police from Smt. Brahmini and she stated that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 14.08.2020 and at the time of the marriage, the father of de facto complainant gave a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, 6 tolas gold, and Rs.70,000/- for purchase of bike to accused No.1. The Mother-in-law, sister-in-law and her son praveen and the complainant’s brother-in-law Srinivas Goud, his wife sujatha, all forced the de facto complainant to bring Rs.3,00,000/- towards additional dowry and tortured her physically and mentally by scolding her in filthy language and attaching illegal affairs. On 10.12.2022, when respondent No.2 was four months pregnant, the above mentioned persons necked her out from the house. On 26.03.2023, above said persons came to the complainant’s parental house and didn’t care about the complainant 7 months of pregnancy and pushed and forced her to sign divorce papers. She filed a complaint before the police and requested to take necessary action against the above said persons. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/accused No.4 is an innocent person and a perusal of the material clearly shows that there is only an omnibus allegations are levelled against him and that there are no specific overt acts attributed against him and in fact the nature of harassment in the hands of the petitioner is also nowhere mentioned and that they were roped into the case only to put pressure on accused No.1 for achieving de facto complainant’s illegal demands. He further submits that the petitioner was selected as Police Constable in Narayanpet District and the allegations against the petitioner/accused No.4 are bald in nature and the entire allegations made in the charge sheet does not constitute any offence against the petitioner/accused No.4, much less the offences under Sections 498-A, 504 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.

In support of his contention, he further relied on Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.S. Thakur v Gyana AIR 2013 SC 181 and also in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v The State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 wherein it is observed that unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be 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 allegations. He further relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta v The State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein it is observed that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against the husband’s relatives who were living in different cities and have rarely visited or stayed with the couple. Therefore he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner/accused No.4 was also present at the time of alleged offences and he also supported accused No.1 in the said offence. As such he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record, the ingredients of the charge sheet shows that accused No.1 is the husband of de facto complainant, accused No.2 is the mother, accused No.3 is the sister, accused No.4 is the son-in-law, accused No.5 is the brother and accused No.6 is the sister-in-law of accused No.1. The marriage of accused No.1 with de facto complainant was performed on 14.08.2020 and at the time of marriage, the father of de facto complainant given dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- cash, 6 tolas gold, Rs.70,000/- for purchase of bike. Intentionally, accused Nos.1 to 6 harassed the de facto complainant and forced her to bring Rs.3,00,000/- towards additional dowry. On 10.12.2022, when the de facto complainant was four months pregnant, the above said persons necked her out from the house. On 11.12.2022, she made a call to 100. Later Damaragidda police, Narayanpet District came to there and took the de facto complainant and handed over to her parents. Later, on 26.03.2023 the above said persons came to the de facto complainant’s parental house and didn’t care about respondent No.2’s seven months pregnancy and pushed and forced her to sign on divorce papers and ordered her to bring Rs.3,00,000/- towards additional dowry. Therefore, when the complainant shouted the accused saw the neighbours’ coming there and immediately all of them ran away on their bikes. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner are omnibus and in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ sonam and others v The State of Bihar supra((2022) 6 SCC 599), unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. In the case hand, petitioner/accused No.4 is the son-in-law of accused No.1 and they are residing separately and there is no averment in complaint that respondent No.4 is residing along with accused No.1. As such, the allegations against the petitioner/accused No.4 is baseless and omnibus in nature which can’t lead to conviction in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court cited above. As such, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 are liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.359 of 2024 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narayanpet District, is hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal petition shall stand closed.