Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1224 (AP)

Talari Sudershan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2012-12-07

K.C.BHANU

body2012
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioners A-3 to A-5 in C.C.No.168 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, YSR Kadapa District. 2. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the Criminal Petition are as follows:- Marriage of the de facto complainant with A-1 was performed on 22.02.2002 at TTD Kalyanamandapam, Yeeraguntla; that at the time of marriage, mother of the de facto complainant presented Rs. 2.5 lakhs of cash and 20 tulas of gold towards dowry to A-1; that after the marriage, A-1 to A-5 looked after the de facto complainant well for some time; that later, the accused started harassing the de facto complainant mentally and physically, demanding her to bring additional dowry from her mother to purchase a house plot; that A-1 suspected the character of the de facto complainant whenever she talked to others and that she was necked out from the house. Later, she lodged a complaint with the Police. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-A-3 to A-5 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not residing in the matrimonial home of A-1 and the de facto complainant and they are residing far away from the place of A-1 and the de facto complainant; that an omnibus allegation is levelled against the petitioners stating that they harassed the de facto complainant demanding to bring additional dowry. He further contended that the date of demand of additional dowry and the place of demand have not been stated in the complaint and therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. 5. It is to be noticed that the entire investigation into the case is completed and the Police filed the charge sheet. At this stage, if the un-controverted allegations in the charge sheet and statements of witnesses make out the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners, quashing of the said C.C. does not arise. 6. 5. It is to be noticed that the entire investigation into the case is completed and the Police filed the charge sheet. At this stage, if the un-controverted allegations in the charge sheet and statements of witnesses make out the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners, quashing of the said C.C. does not arise. 6. Explanation (b) to Section 498-A I.P.C., reads as under:- "Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." From the above explanation, it is clear that any unlawful demand made by the husband or relative of the husband is a cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. 7. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with A-1 and A-2 harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry so as to the purchase a house plot and as, the de facto complainant was unable to meet their demand, she was sent to her mother's place. Therefore, it is clear that an unlawful demand for additional dowry was made by the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2012 AIR SCW 5692, wherein it is held as under:- "We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geetha Mehrotar and Ramji Mehrtra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No. 2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently, the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed." In the above decision, there is no allegation against the appellants therein in the F.I.R. constituting the offence. The appeal accordingly is allowed." In the above decision, there is no allegation against the appellants therein in the F.I.R. constituting the offence. Therefore, the above decision has no application to the present case. 9. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Preethi Gupta v. State of Jharkand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , wherein it is held thus:- "The ultimate object of justice is to find out the trust and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection." There is no dispute about the said proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court. But, in the present case as many as five witnesses spoke about the harassment made by the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 , wherein it is held as under:- "The High Court has merely mentioned that the allegations in the complaint are of retaining jewellery articles in possession of the husband and the petitioners. Now, if the articles were in the possession of the husband, there is no question of the present appellants being in possession of the jewellery. This is apart from the fact that it has already been expressed by us that there is no mention of the date on which the said ornaments, if any, were entrusted to the appellants or even the date when they were demanded back and were refused to be given back by the appellants or any one of them. Insofar as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, we do not find any material or allegation worth the name against the present appellants. Insofar as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, we do not find any material or allegation worth the name against the present appellants. All the allegations appear to be against Rajesh. In the aforesaid case, on the fact situation, as no offence was made out under Section 498-A IPC against the appellants, the charge sheet was quashed. 11. Similarly, he also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica, (2209) 10 SCC 604, wherein it is held as under:- "The only allegation which brings the case within the purview of Section 406 is that appellant 2 had taken all the gifts/cash given by the invitees/guests. Technically, this allegation would attract the definition of breach of trust within the meaning of Section 405 IPC. Entrustment of some properties and/or dominion over them, if any, therefore, is attributed only against appellant No. 2. Other allegations made against the appellants are general in nature. Entrustment is said to have been made to the appellants and/or their son. No definite case of entrustment of any property has been made against appellant No. 1. He is only said to have given back to the complainant's parents the entire clothes and jewellery. No demand was made by the respondent." That is a case where on the facts mentioned, no offence has been made out against one of the appellants and hence, the proceedings were quashed against him. 12. But, in this case, it is clearly stated in the complaint that the petitioners along with A-1 and A-2 harassed the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry. Therefore, prima facie the allegations make out an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to dispense with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court. For that purpose, the petitioners are at liberty to make an application before the trial Court, which shall be considered by the trial Court. It is further made clear that observations, if any, made in this Criminal Petition are only for the purpose of disposal of the present Criminal Petition and the trial Court shall dispose of the said C.C. uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made by this Court in this order. It is further made clear that observations, if any, made in this Criminal Petition are only for the purpose of disposal of the present Criminal Petition and the trial Court shall dispose of the said C.C. uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made by this Court in this order. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.