Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 229 (TS)

B. Sharath Kumar Goud v. Usha Rani

2022-03-16

G.SRI DEVI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision case is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, in Crl.M.P.No.940 of 2010 in C.C.No.274 of 2010, dated 16.11.2010, dismissing the said petition filed by the revision petitioner/A-1 under Section 245 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The 1st respondent/complainant herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioner/A-1 and A-2 to A-6, who are the parents, brother, sister and sister-in-law of A-1 respectively, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 109 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, alleging that her marriage with A-1 was performed as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 17.06.2006 at Gadwal and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, 20 tolas of gold ornaments apart from clothes and utensils worth Rs.1,50,000/- were given towards dowry to the accused. Subsequently, the complainant joined A-1 and led marital life for a period of three months at her in-laws house. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 to A-5 started harassing the complainant both mentally and physically by demanding an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards additional dowry. A-1 to A-6 also threatened her by stating that A-1 will marry another woman if she fails to comply with their demand. The complainant endured the ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of the accused with a fond hope that A-1 would realize his folly and take her back. However, on 22.06.2007, A-1 has filed O.P.No.479 of 2007 under Section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of divorce and the same is pending adjudication. The mediations, which took place at the intervention of elders to settle the dispute also, failed. However, A-1 to A6 have demanded the brothers of the complainant to execute a registered gift deed in favoujr of A-1 in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.837 situated near Railway station, Gadwal, towards additional dowry, for which they refused. However, A-1 to A6 have demanded the brothers of the complainant to execute a registered gift deed in favoujr of A-1 in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.837 situated near Railway station, Gadwal, towards additional dowry, for which they refused. It is further stated that A-1 assaulted her with a chappal, A-2, A-5 and A6 manhandled her and also abused her in filthy language and A-3 and A-4 assaulted the younger brother of the complainant and that all the accused instigated her to commit suicide by consuming poison. Hence, the complaint. 3. The aforesaid private complaint was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Thereafter, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gadwal Town Police Station registered the complaint as a case in Crime No.132 of 2010 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up investigation. Eventually, after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid under the aforesaid offences against A-1 only, deleting the names of A-2 to A-6 as no offence is made out against them. Hence, the case was taken on file by the trial Court against the revision petitioner/A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.274 of 2010. 4. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/A-1 filed the aforesaid Crl.M.P.No.940 of 2010 seeking to discharge him from the offences alleged against him, inter alia, contending that the Investigating Officer, while deleting the names of A-2 to A-6, erred in charge sheeting A-1 basing on the very same statements of the witnesses; that in the counter filed by the 1st respondent/complainant in O.P.No.479 of 2007, it is specifically stated that in the month of August, 2007, the revision petitioner/A-1 necked her out of the house and as such it is evident that the de facto complainant has been living away from the society of the revision petitioner/A-1 from August, 2007 till the filing of the present private complaint on 31.05.2010 and that she did not take any steps for reconciliation. It is further stated that the revision petitioner/A-1 was away on Censes duty and as such the alleged panchayat held on 23.05.2010 in the house of one Venkatesh Goud at Gadwal does not arise and that the present private complaint is only as a counter blast to the divorce O.P. filed by the revision petitioner/A-1 and therefore, prayed to discharge him from the case. 5. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent/complainant, it is stated that all the witnesses categorically stated that the revision petitioner/A-1 harassed the complainant physically and mentally; that the accusation against the revision petitioner/A-1 is well founded during the course of investigation; that the alleged offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is a continuous offence and that this is not the stage to go into the merits of the case and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. On a perusal of the entire material available on record, the trial Court held that the veracity of the allegations leveled by the 1st respondent/de facto complainant against the revision petitioner/A-1 is a matter of evidence and it cannot be decided at this stage and accordingly dismissed the petition. 7. Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1; learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/de facto complainant; learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent/State and perused the entire material available on record. 8. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner/A-1 got married the 1st respondent/de facto complainant on 17.06.2006. The grounds on which the revision petitioner/A-1 sought to be discharged from the case are, firstly, the complaint was made three years after separation of the revision petitioner/A-1 and the 1st respondent/complainant and secondly on the date of alleged family panchayat dated 23.05.2010 at Gadwal, he was not present at Gadwal and claimed alibi. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that on 23.05.2010 a family panchayat was held at Gadwal, wherein the revision petitioner and his family members reiterated their demand of additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs or to execute a gift deed in respect of the land and that when the 1st respondent/complainant and her family members refused the same, the revision petitioner/A-1 assaulted her with a chappal in the presence of the panchayat members. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/complainant filed the present complaint on 31.05.2010. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/complainant filed the present complaint on 31.05.2010. Further, it is well settled law that alibi must be proved with absolute certainty and the burden of proof is always on the accused. The plea of alibi is purely a disputed question of fact and such question cannot be accepted at this stage as it is purely a matter of evidence. A perusal of the allegations in the private complaint as well as statements of witnesses would clearly reveal a prima facie case against the revision petitioner/A-1 for the aforesaid offences. The record further discloses that the revision petitioner/A-1 filed H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2009 for dissolution of his marriage with the 1st respondent/de facto complainant by way of decree of divorce and the same was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Jude, Gadwal, on 21.12.2011, holding that the revision petitioner/A-1 has failed to establish that there was a cruelty or desertion on the part of the 1st respondent/de facto complainant entitling him to get divorce from the 1st respondent/de facto complainant. The truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into in this petition and it can only be decided during the course of trial. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the trial Court is justified and that there is no valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.