Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 66 (TS)

Aleemuddin Mohammed v. State Of Telangana

2020-01-21

G.SRI DEVI

body2020
JUDGMENT G. Sri Devi, J. - The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/A1 to A4, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.846 of 2018 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal. 2. The facts in issue are that on a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the police, Alwal, registered a case in Crime No.304 of 2017. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners/A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 384 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations in the charge sheet are that the marriage of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant was performed with the 1st petitioner/A1 on 08.08.2016. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant gave net cash of Rs. 80,000/-, motor cycle worth Rs. 82,000/-, four tulas of gold ornaments and other household articles. It is stated that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner/A1 lived happily only for ten days, thereafter, the 1st petitioner/A1 on the instigation of petitioners/A2 to A4, started harassing her both physically and mentally for getting more additional dowry from her parents. In this regard, a counselling was held at Alwal Police Station, but the petitioners/A1 to A4 did not co-operate with the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant. It is also stated that on 10.03.2017 the petitioners/A1 and A3 forcibly obtained the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on affidavit of Khulanama stating that she is wilfully giving declaration for divorce and thereafter they approached the Khazi, along with the said documents for divorce of the 1st petitioner/A1 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. Further, it is stated that the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant were forcibly obtained by the petitioners/A1 to A4 on 10.04.2017 and there is every likelihood of using the said stamp papers by the petitioners/A1 to A4 for obtaining divorce. Further, it is stated that the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant were forcibly obtained by the petitioners/A1 to A4 on 10.04.2017 and there is every likelihood of using the said stamp papers by the petitioners/A1 to A4 for obtaining divorce. The Assistant Khaji (LW.6) took the petitioners/A1 and A3 to the Government Khaji (LW.5) and on perusal of the documents, he issued a Khula Certificate on 19.05.2017, but the petitioners/A1 to A4 neither took the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to the Khaji nor made her to talk with him and simply with the affidavit which was obtained from her, they misrepresented with the Assistant Khaji (LW.6) and the Government Khaji (LW.5) and got obtained the Khula Certificates. 3. A counter-affidavit came to be filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant stating that she lodged the above complaint against the petitioners/A1 to A4, who harassed her both mentally and physically for want of additional dowry and they also obtained the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on blank stamp papers and white papers. It is also stated that initially the police mentioned Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the F.I.R. and subsequently, the police basing on the contents of the complaint, investigated into the matter and found that the petitioners/A1 and A3 also committed the offence under Section 384 of I.P.C., because they forcibly obtained the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on blank stamp papers. It is also stated that the petitioners/A1 to A4 did not provide food to her for three days and obtained her signatures forcibly on blank stamp papers and on white papers and subsequently it was typed, scribed and converted into different papers by showing different dates and later she was abandoned on road near to her parents home. Because of the ill treatment, harassment and torture made by the petitioners/ A1 to A4, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant became weak and unconscious and immediately she was taken to nearby hospital and the doctors treated her and she was continued to be in unconscious state of mind for a week and the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant got mental shock and agony by seeing her condition. Later on, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant tried their level best to have negotiation with the petitioners/A1 to A4, but in vain, due to which the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant was constrained to lodge the complaint. It is also stated that during pendency of investigation, the petitioners/A1 to A4 filed Criminal Petition vide Crl.P.No.4674 of 2017 and this Court, by an order, dated 21.06.2017, while disposing of the said Criminal Petition, directed the Police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Accordingly, on 11.09.2017, a notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioners/A1 to A4, but they did not comply with the said notice within the stipulated time. As such, after investigation, the police filed charge sheet. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A4; learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A4 submits that a reading of complaint, F.I.R. and charge sheet would clinchingly establish that the criminal case against the petitioners/ A1 to A4 is sheer abuse of process of law and even if the allegations in the complaint, F.I.R. and charge sheet are taken at their face value to be true and correct, the same would not constitute any offence against the petitioners/A1 to A4 much less the offences punishable under Section 384 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint was lodged with an unexplained delay of more than one month. It is also stated that the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant were obtained before her family members. The Criminal complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is absurd and inherently improbable and on the basis of which a prudent person can also reach to a just conclusion that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners/A1 to A4. It is further submitted that immediately after the marriage, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with her free will and consent executed an agreement, dated 16.08.2016 stating that there is no fault of her husband and parents-in-law in taking the decision to leave her matrimonial house. It is further submitted that immediately after the marriage, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with her free will and consent executed an agreement, dated 16.08.2016 stating that there is no fault of her husband and parents-in-law in taking the decision to leave her matrimonial house. The 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant also executed a deed of declaration, dated 20.08.2016 and agreements dated 29.08.2016 and 10.02.2017 before the witnesses and her parents and in all the above mentioned documents, she has admitted that she is not interested to lead matrimonial life with the 1st petitioner/A1. In the light of the said documentary evidence of impeachable quality, it clinchingly established that the criminal complaint is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and her parents lodged the present false complaint against the petitioners/A1 to A4 only to avoid the liability of Rs. 8,50,000/- which the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant promised to repay as mentioned in the affidavit of Deed of Qula, dated 10.04.2017, before obtaining the Qula from the 1st petitioner/A1. When the 1st petitioner/A1 got issued legal notice on 11.05.2017, calling upon the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to pay the said amount, she lodged the present complaint on 13.05.2017 only to harass the petitioners. It is further submitted that the police personnel failed to investigate into the matter in a proper manner and conducted inquiry into the matter in a mechanical manner, without looking into the documents produced by the petitioners/A1 to A4. 6. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant would submit that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant never executed any agreement at any point of time nor executed any Deed of Qula or any other documents as alleged by the petitioners/A1 to A4 and the truth will come out during the course of trial and at this juncture it may not be proper to decide the genuineness of documents without any enquiry. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 7. As seen from the material available on record, it reveals that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant executed a Deed of Declaration, dated 20.08.2016 and agreements dated 29.08.2016 and 10.02.2017 before the witnesses and her parents with her free will and consent, wherein she has admitted that she has not interested to lead matrimonial life with the 1st petitioner/A1. 7. As seen from the material available on record, it reveals that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant executed a Deed of Declaration, dated 20.08.2016 and agreements dated 29.08.2016 and 10.02.2017 before the witnesses and her parents with her free will and consent, wherein she has admitted that she has not interested to lead matrimonial life with the 1st petitioner/A1. Further, after receipt of the legal notice got issued by the 1st petitioner/A1, the present complaint has been filed, which clearly establishes that the said complaint has been filed in order to avoid payment of Rs. 8,50,000/- to the petitioners/A1 to A4 as agreed upon by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and that the same is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC(Cri) 426 I find that it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A4 in C.C.No.846 of 2018 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A1 to A4 in C.C.No.846 of 2018 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, are hereby quashed. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.