AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mrs. Justice Manjula Chellup
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
The two petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos. 5 and 6 in the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent - Venkatesh Babu/complainant.
It is not in dispute that the daughter of the 2nd respondent/Venkatesh Babu by name Sri. Lakshmi got married to one Mr. Ramprasad on 19/20.6.2011 and the present petitioners are the paternal aunt and her husband.
According to the petitioners, the 1st accused/Ramprasad has parents living and he is living with them. Therefore, they have nothing to do with the allegations made in the complaint as the said Ramprasad and his wife hardly lived for 4 to 5 days in the house of parents of Mr. Ramprasad. The only active part played in the matter is participating in the marriage talks and supervising the marriage arrangement.
On going through the contents of the complaint dated 29.8.2011, it is dis-heartening to note that within a span of 2 1/2 months the relationship between the husband and wife went to an extent of lodging a complaint against the husband and others. The contents of the complaint further reveals that on 26.6.2011 itself, the girl went to her parental house as it was ''Ashada'' month and only after 2 1/2 months, the complaint was lodged.
According to the petitioners'' Counsel, if really there was harassment and ill treatment as complained in the complaint, they would not have taken 2 1/2 months to lodge the complaint and it would have been immediately after the wife going to her parental house.
7, The contents of the complaint indicates that though the girl was given in marriage with the information that Mr. Ramprasad/1st accused was having a good job and a descent person but according to the complaint, it proved otherwise As a matter of fact, they allege mental illness to the 1st accused/Ramprasad. As per the complaint, these two petitioners are said to be foster parents of the 1st accused and it is not denied by them that they took active part in not only arranging the marriage but also in performing the marriage. The matter is still under investigation. There is close relationship between the 1st accused and the petitioners. The object of the provisions of Section 498A IPC is not restricted only to the husband and his parents but also relatives of the husband.
When the matter is under investigation, in the absence of any material pointing out falsity in the allegations made by the complainant, this is not a fit case at this stage to interfere and quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.