AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ninala Jayasurya, J
Heard Mr.T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and Mr.S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.
The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.416 of 2020 on the file of the Learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
The petitioners herein are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Pursuant to the complaint dated 01.08.2018 of the 2nd respondent, the Police registered F.I.R.No.308 of 2018 on 19.09.2018.
In the complaint, it is inter alia stated that the 2nd respondent married the 1st petitioner/Accused No.1 on 30.12.2010, at the time of marriage the 1st petitioner said that neither his parents nor he needed dowry or gifts and that what they liked was the 2nd respondent and her family. It is further stated that a few days after the marriage, her husband and in-laws looked after her well, thereafter on coming to know on enquiry about the properties of the 2nd respondent’s parents, the petitioners 2 & 3/Accused Nos.2 & 3 started pressurizing the 2nd respondent to get dowry & car, she told her father about the same and on that her father said that once the 2nd respondent and her husband settle in the jobs, all the issues will be settled. She also mentioned in the complaint that in Hyderabad, where they set up their family, the house of elder brother of the 2nd respondent’s husband and his sister-in-law was nearer to their house, whenever they are free, they used to come to the 2nd respondent’s house, they also used to demand the 2nd respondent for dowry and provoke the 2nd respondent’s husband to beat her. It is also stated in the said complaint that on one occasion when the 2nd respondent’s mother visited Hyderabad, they went out to purchase groceries, by the time they came back, the whole house was full of water, the internet wire was cut and dropped into water, as the current was off at that time, the 2nd respondent and her mother survived, otherwise they would have subjected to shock and died and that in the said manner her husband attempted to kill them. It is stated that every day the 1st petitioner used to harass the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally and made her life miserable. Further, the 1st petitioner used to stay at his brother’s house, by leaving the 2nd respondent alone, he also used to beat and abuse her everyday as there is no hope for him that the 2nd respondent would get the dowry.
In the complaint it is further stated that when the 2nd respondent’s parents were informed about the same, her mother came to Hyderabad, without allowing her to enter the house, the 1st petitioner necked out the 2nd respondent from their house without even allowing her to take her clothes, certificates, gold etc., Though the 2nd respondent wanted to lodge a complaint, her parents prevented her stating that the problem should be solved through elders and not by filing cases. In the complaint it is also mentioned that after the 2nd respondent came to her parents, within few days her husband filed F.C.O.P.No.1315 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking divorce with false allegations, the same was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent’s parents and when they approached the petitioners, the father-in-law/ 3rd petitioner convinced the 2nd respondent’s father stating that everything will be settled after some time and then the case can be withdrawn. It is further stated that when the 2nd respondent used to attend the Court, her father-in-law used to tell her that the issue can be resolved amicably, then the case can be withdrawn and that she was assured by him that he will take care of the matter. In the complaint it is also stated that during November, 2013 her father expired and except her mother there is no one to stand by her side. She was under the hope that her in-laws would do justice, but her father-in-law demanded to get Rs.10,00,000/- and car as told by his son and on realizing that she was cheated, she is lodging the complaint.
The Police after investigation filed a Charge Sheet for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the cognizance of which was taken in C.C.No.2117 of 2018, which was re-numbered as C.C.No.416 of 2020 on the file of Court of the Learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City. Seeking to quash the proceedings in the said case, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
The learned counsel for petitioners while making elaborate submissions and taking this Court through the material on record, inter alia, contended that the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint against the petitioners making false and baseless allegations with a mala fide intention. He submits that as long back as in the year 2012, the 1st petitioner vexed with the attitude of the 2nd respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.1315 of 2012 on the file of the Learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking dissolution of marriage. He submits that much prior to the filing of the said divorce case, the 2nd respondent left the matrimonial house on her own volition and in the year 2015 she filed F.C.O.P.No.889 of 2015 on the file of the Learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam seeking maintenance and after the full-fledged Trial, the learned Judge, Additional Family Court passed a Common Order on 30.10.2018 dissolving the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent and partly allowed the maintenance case by awarding a monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the 2nd respondent. He submits that the 2nd respondent did not challenge the order of the dissolution of marriage, but on the other hand, the 1st petitioner/Accused No.1 challenged the order of maintenance vide Crl.R.C.No.3 of 2019 and interim stay of the operation of the order of the Learned Family Judge was granted, on condition of the 1st petitioner depositing arrears of maintenance and that the said matter is pending adjudication. The learned counsel while emphasizing that just before pronouncement of the orders in the O.P filed by the 1st petitioner seeking dissolution of the marriage, the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint on 19.09.2018, referring to the incidents, which were allegedly taken place even prior to filing of F.C.O.P.No.1315 of 2012, he submits that except making some omnibus allegations, the 2nd respondent had not mentioned the specific details with reference to dates on which the incidents alleged in the complaint occurred. The learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent made allegations with reference to demand for dowry even in the Counter filed in F.C.O.P. No.1315 of 2012 and the Learned Judge, Family Court dealt with the matter extensively and passed orders disbelieving the version of the 2nd respondent and the same have attained finality, as no appeal was filed against the orders in the said O.P. Making other submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to allow the Criminal Petition as prayed for.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, while opposing the said submissions contended that in view of the allegations made in the complaint, the matter needs to be examined by conducting a full-fledged Trial and interference by this Court at this stage, as sought for is not warranted.
The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent while vehemently contending that in view of the serious nature of the allegations made in the complaint, it is a matter for Trial and only with a view to avoid the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed and that there are no merits in the matter warranting the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the 2nd respondent was under a bona fide impression that the matter would be amicably resolved by her father-in-law, believing his words and for the said reason, she did not lodge the complaint immediately and therefore much significance need not be attached to the same. Be that as it may, he submits that if Trial is allowed to be proceeded with, the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint would be examined by the Learned Magistrate and the petitioners will have ample opportunity to defend their case. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.
This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record, including the order passed by the Learned Family Judge granting a decree for divorce by dissolving the marriage between the 1 st petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It is not disputed that against the said order, no appeal is preferred. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners and noted from the order passed in the divorce O.P, it is the admitted case of the parties that since the year 2012, the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent are living separately. It is not in dispute that a plea was taken that after marriage of the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have harassed the 2nd respondent for additional dowry and she was necked out during the year 2012. The Learned Family Judge in the Common Order dated 30.10.2018 with regard to the allegation of demand for additional dowry, inter alia, observed that the mother of the 2nd respondent was not examined for the reasons best known to the 2nd respondent. Thus, the version of the 2nd respondent with regard to demand for additional dowry was virtually disbelieved.
Be that as it may. From a reading of the complaint, it is discernible that the allegations made against the petitioners are prior to the year 2012, and it is also the case of the 2nd respondent that she is living separately from 2012 onwards. Though in the complaint, the 2nd respondent sought to justify the delay in lodging the same several years after the alleged incidents on the premise that she is with a fond hope that the matter would be resolved and settled as assured by the father of the 1st petitioner/3rd respondent, the same deserves no appreciation, more particularly, in view of the litigation between the parties and the cases pending in respect of the same. Had the allegations made in the complaint to the effect that an attempt was made to kill the 2nd respondent and her mother are true, the 2nd respondent would not have kept quiet and lodged a complaint immediately. Even, in the divorce petition filed by the 1st petitioner, allegations of demand for additional dowry were raised by the 2nd respondent. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint, which was lodged by the 2nd respondent, at the fag end of the arguments in the divorce petition is lacking in bona fides. Even otherwise, from a reading of the allegations made in the complaint, it is clear that they are omnibus in nature and no case can be made out against the petitioners, on the basis of the said allegations, which allegedly occurred more than 6 years prior to lodging of the complaint. Though the learned counsel for the respondents tried to impress upon that it is a matter for Trial, this Court on thorough examination of the material on record, is not inclined to accept the said submissions, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. In the considered opinion of this Court, continuation of the proceedings on the basis of omnibus allegations and in the light of the findings recorded by the Learned Judge, Family Court amounts to abuse of process of Law. Applying the parameters set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Of Haryana & Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others [1992 AIR SC 604], the proceedings initiated against the petitioners warrants interference by this Court.
In such view of the matter and the conclusions arrived at supra the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.416 of 2020 on the file of the Learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District are quashed against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.