Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 822 (AP)

Geetha Chakravarthy v. State of A. P.

2012-09-06

K.S.APPA RAO

body2012
ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 11 of 2010 on the file of the Station House Officer, Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein, mother-in-law of de facto complainant, is A-2 in the said crime. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly argued that the allegations in the complaint are false; that the marriage between A-1 and the de facto complainant is a love marriage, which was performed by the consent of their respective parents; that the husband of the petitioner died while A-1 was at the age of six months; that thereafter, the petitioner brought up A-1; that she is solely dependant on A-1; that the de facto complainant since the date of marriage started insisting A-1 for separate living, for which A-1 did not oblige; that the de facto complainant belongs to Christian Community, whereas the accused belong to Hindu Community; and that the de facto complainant continued her adamant attitude and filed DVC and other complaints on after the other only to harass the accused. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision reported in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal and others (1) 2005 (1) SCJ 156= 2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 101 (SC)= (2005) 3 SCC 299 . 4. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings in Crime No.11 of 2010 registered against the petitioner. 5. As seen from the complaint, marriage between the de facto complaint and A-1 was performed on 24-4-2008. Both are working in private firms. A-1 took financial loans on the name of de facto complainant and used to come to home in drunken condition. In the month of October, 2009, A-1 driven the de facto complainant out of the house and at request, she was allowed to continue in the said house. Thereafter, she approached Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad, and reported against A-1. In spite of counseling, A-1 continued his harassment towards her and during the pendency of these disputes, the pe!itioner/A-2 sold away her plot on 7-1-2010 depriving the de facto complainant to enjoy the matrimonial house, for which she lodged the present complaint under Section 498-A IPC. 6. Thereafter, she approached Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad, and reported against A-1. In spite of counseling, A-1 continued his harassment towards her and during the pendency of these disputes, the pe!itioner/A-2 sold away her plot on 7-1-2010 depriving the de facto complainant to enjoy the matrimonial house, for which she lodged the present complaint under Section 498-A IPC. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that A-1 and the de facto complainant have compromised the matter, that they have filed memorandum of compromise before the Lok Adalat; that pursuant to the said compromise, they filed O.P. No. 1621 of 2010 before the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hdyerabad, for divorce by mutual consent; and that the Family Court vide its order, dated 24-4-2008, allowed, the said petition granting decree of divorce on mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between the de facto complainant and A-1. 7. Admittedly, pursuant to the said compromise and divorce there is no relationship of wife and husband between the de facto complainant and A-1. No specific allegations were made against the petitioner that she, at any time, harassed the de facto Complaint. Moreover, marriage between the de facto complainant and A-1 is a love marriage and therefore, payment of dowry and demand for additional dowry does not arise. Apart from that, there is no allegation of demanding dowry against the petitioner also. What was stated in the complaint is that A-1 was harassing the de facto complainant while in drunken state. Therefore, in any view of the matter, as there are no specific allegations leveled against the petitioner, which attract the ingredients under Section 498-A IPC and there is a decree of divorce by mutual consent among the de facto complainant and A-1, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.11 of 2010 on the file of Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad. 9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.