Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 436 (TS)

Gangapuram Hanumanthu Reddy v. State of Telangana

2022-07-05

D.NAGARJUN

body2022
ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quash of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.174 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar (now XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar). 2. The brief facts, as can be gathered from the record available before this Court, are as hereunder: a) The marriage of the de-facto complainant ? respondent No.2 with accused No.1 has taken place on 17.12.2014 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the de-facto complainant gave dowry i.e., 100 thulas of gold, 3? kilograms of silver and Rs.25 lakhs of cash and also plot at Kamineni Hospital. Accused No.1 was working as Software Engineer in California, United States of America (hereinafter will be referred as ?USA?). b) On 01.02.2015 i.e., immediately after the marriage, the de-facto complainant has also joined accused No.1 and traveled to USA. After reaching USA, accused No.1 has started harassing the de-facto complainant for additional dowry and accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the petitioners herein were talking to accused No.1 over phone every day and encouraging accused No.1 to harass and beat her. The de-facto complainant was blessed with a daughter by name Sahasra. The father of the de-facto complainant ? respondent No. 2 has visited USA in the month of April, 2016 and tried to resolve the dispute amicably. On 31.12.2016 accused No. 1 and de-facto complainant came to Hyderabad and started residing in the house of accused No.1 along with the petitioners. All the accused have started harassing the de-facto complainant for additional dowry and they used to beat her every day demanding her to execute registered sale deed of the plot in the name of accused No.1. c) On 03.02.2017 the de-facto complainant along with her daughter have attended a marriage of her cousin at Amangal. On 07.02.2017 the de-facto complainant went to her cousin sister house at Nagarjuna Colony to take her daughter to hospital as her daughter was suffering from ill health. On the very same day at 1.30 PM, accused No.1 came to the house of the de-facto complainant and asked her to come with him for which she refused. On 07.02.2017 the de-facto complainant went to her cousin sister house at Nagarjuna Colony to take her daughter to hospital as her daughter was suffering from ill health. On the very same day at 1.30 PM, accused No.1 came to the house of the de-facto complainant and asked her to come with him for which she refused. Accused No.1 took his daughter to L.V.Prasad Eye Hospital and on knowing the same, de-facto complainant also went to the hospital along with her cousin. Accused No.1 did not allow the de-facto complainant to take care of her daughter. Later the de-facto complainant came to know that on 11.02.2017, accused No.1 has taken his daughter to USA. d) On a complaint given by respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.112 of 2017 was registered by Vanasthalipuram Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 3 under Sections 498-A, 363 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, during the course of enquiry, the Police have recorded the statements of the de-facto complainant and other witnesses. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 363 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the said crime No.112 of 2017 was numbered as C.C.No.174 of 2018 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar. 3. Aggrieved by the proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2018, the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 have filed the present criminal petition for quashing the same on the following grounds: i) There are no specific allegations against the petitioners regarding demand of additional dowry and harassment and even as per the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the de-facto complainant and her parents gave gold, silver and cash to de-facto complainant but not to accused Nos. 1 to 3. ii) The ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act do not attract merely because the petitioners have been speaking to their son i.e., accused No.1 over phone. iii) Immediately after marriage, accused No.1 and de-facto complainant went to USA and lead a marital life at USA and thus, the question of harassment and demand of dowry does not arise. iii) Immediately after marriage, accused No.1 and de-facto complainant went to USA and lead a marital life at USA and thus, the question of harassment and demand of dowry does not arise. iv) After the birth of grand-daughter of the petitioners herein, some differences arose between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, as the granddaughter of the petitioners is suffering from critical medical condition i.e., optic nerve pallor, hypoxic brain injury, hyperplasia, inter-ventricular and hemorrhage and the doctors have given certain directions to de-facto complainant and accused No.1 but de-facto complainant did not attend to the duties of her daughter. Medical experts at California have suggested that there is no medicine or surgery available to treat the daughter of de-facto complainant and accused No.1. Hence, accused No.1 has searched for top pediatric neurologists in India for second opinion over his daughter?s health condition and he could find a doctor by name Lokesh Lingappa, who was practicing at Rainbow Children?s Hospital, Secunderabad. The appointment of Lokesh Lingappa can be secured months prior to the fixing of appointment and thus accused No.1 and de-facto complainant came to India on 31.12.2016 for obtaining second opinion of said doctor and accordingly the appointment of Lokesh Lingappa was secured on 08.02.2017, wherein the doctor has diagnosed that the baby has developed seizures/fits in her left part of brain and advised to follow up with US doctor. But the de-facto complainant abandoned by the baby and left to her native place in Deverakonda. On that the petitioners herein have requested the de-facto complainant to come back and feed the baby for which, the de-facto complainant has refused, as she disliked the baby for the handicapped condition and blindness. v) The de-facto complainant was not interested to go to USA and thus, she has handed over the baby to accused No.1 on 08.02.2017 before the elders and immediately on 11.02.2017 the accused No.1 and petitioner No.2 herein left to USA to provide necessary medial treatment at USA. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant has filed all false cases against the petitioners and accused No.1 and hence prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.174 of 2018 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayatnagar. 4. There was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 ? de-facto complainant. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant has filed all false cases against the petitioners and accused No.1 and hence prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.174 of 2018 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayatnagar. 4. There was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 ? de-facto complainant. In order to hear the version of respondent No.2, the matter was posted from time to time and even after that there was on representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 6. Now the point for determination is: ?Whether the proceedings against petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.174 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayatnagar, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?? 7. On perusal of the record including complaint, statements of victim, her parents and other witnesses including the documents filed by the petitioners as additional documents dated 11.02.2020, it is clear that the disputes between the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 started in California, USA. According to the de-facto complainant, accused No.1 used to harass the de-facto complainant for want of additional dowry. There is no record that the de-facto complainant has made any protest, more particularly when she has not informed about the alleged harassment at USA to anybody or when she has not made any complaint to the Police at USA when accused No.1 was harassing her for want of additional dowry. Except self serving statement of de-facto complainant, there is no material to that extent. 8. The de-facto complainant has returned to India along with her husband and started staying in their house since 31.12.2016. It is the contention of the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant that after reaching India, the de-facto complainant and her husband and the petitioners herein, who are the parents of accused No.1, have started harassing de-facto complainant for execution of registered sale deed in respect of plot, which was given as dowry at the time of marriage. Subsequently, even according to the petitioners? version, the de-facto complainant did not cooperate with the family of the petitioners. 9. Subsequently, even according to the petitioners? version, the de-facto complainant did not cooperate with the family of the petitioners. 9. The petitioners have filed number of documents, which go to show that the daughter of accused No.1 and de-facto complainant was suffering from rare and chronic health condition i.e., optic nerve pallor, hypoxic brain injury, hyperplasia, inter-ventricular and hemorrhage. According to accused No.1, he has shown his daughter to many medical experts in USA and also took an appointment with one of the experts in India and taken his daughter to the said experts. Similarly, the de-facto complainant could not even take her daughter to the hospital when she was in India. Even according to the complaint and the statements of de-facto complainant under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when accused No.1 has asked the de-facto complainant to follow him to USA, she has refused to go with accused No.1. When the petitioners have telephonically requested, the de-facto complainant also refused to join them. Since, accused No.1 wanted to take his daughter to medical expert, he has taken her to USA leaving de-facto complainant. It is alleged by the accused that de-facto complainant has deliberately not evinced any interest to take her daughter to a doctor, as she was not happy with the disease of her daughter and that her daughter was blind. Therefore, all these things would go to show that there is contributory negligence on the part of the de-facto complainant also in increasing gap between the de-facto complainant and accused No.1. 10. So far as these two petitioners are concerned, allegations leveled against them are omnibus and they are very generic in nature. It is alleged that the petitioners have instigated accused No.1 to harass the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant does not know as to what the petitioners have spoken to their son i.e., accused No.1 over phone. 11. It is alleged by the de-facto complainant that even after coming to India from USA, accused Nos.1 to 3 have harassed her for want of additional dowry of registration of plot. The de facto complainant is expected to mention clearly the overt-acts of each of the accused in order to fasten criminal liability. Vague and untenable omnibus allegations cannot constitute an offence against the petitioners. The de facto complainant is expected to mention clearly the overt-acts of each of the accused in order to fasten criminal liability. Vague and untenable omnibus allegations cannot constitute an offence against the petitioners. The Hon?ble Apex Court in an authority between Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 184 has held as follows: ?In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.? 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in order to attract the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that the conduct of the accused in driving the de-facto complainant to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of her health. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an authority of the Hon?ble Supreme Court between Varala Bharath Kumar and another vs. State of Telangana and another, (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 413, wherein it was held as follows: ?8. We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498A was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the afore-mentioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498A was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the afore-mentioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The records at hand could not disclose any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage. The record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.? 13. In another authority of the Hon?ble Supreme Court between Shakson Belthissor vs. State of Kerala and another, (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 466, it was held as follows: ?22. When we examine the facts of the present case particularly the FIR and the charge sheet we find that there is no such allegation either in the FIR or in the charge sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation (a). There is no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause the Respondent No. 2 to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her life. The ingredient to constitute an offence under explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC are not at all mentioned either in FIR or in charge sheet and in absence thereof, no case is made out. Therefore, explanation (a) as found in Section 498A IPC is clearly not attracted in the present case. 23. We, therefore, now proceed to examine as to whether the case would fall under explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC constituting cruelty of the nature as mentioned in explanation (b). Therefore, explanation (a) as found in Section 498A IPC is clearly not attracted in the present case. 23. We, therefore, now proceed to examine as to whether the case would fall under explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC constituting cruelty of the nature as mentioned in explanation (b). In order to constitute cruelty under the said provision there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. When the allegation made in the FIR and charge sheet is examined in the present case in the light of the aforesaid provision, we find that no prima facie case even under the aforesaid provision is made out to attract a case of cruelty. 24. The marriage between the appellant and Respondent No. 2 was performed on 23.10.1997 when it is alleged that Rs. 5 lakhs was given by the parents of Respondent No. 2 to the family of appellant as dowry. The FIR was filed in the month of April, 2002 and in the said FIR there is no allegation that subsequent thereto any harassment was made by the appellant with a view to coercing her or any person related to Respondent No. 2 to meet any unlawful demand or any property. 25. In that view of the matter neither explanation (a) nor explanation (b) of Section 498 A of IPC is attracted in the present case. It is crystal clear that neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet there is any ingredient of Section 498A IPC, which could prima facie constitute a case of cruelty as defined in that Section. 26. It is thus established that on a reading of the FIR as also the charge sheet filed against the appellant no case under Section 498A is made out on the face of the record, and therefore, both the FIR as also the charge sheet are liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. Clearly, the High Court failed to appreciate the facts in proper perspective, and therefore, committed an error on the face of the record.? 14. Clearly, the High Court failed to appreciate the facts in proper perspective, and therefore, committed an error on the face of the record.? 14. Above all, once dispute arose between the de-facto complainant and accused, the de-facto complainant has filed the present case in C.C.No.174 of 2018 for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, D.V.C.No.14 of 2017 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Deverakonda, Nalgonda District and H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2017 before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Nalgonda for divorce. The certified copy of the cross examination of de-facto complainant dated 23.09.2019 in HMOP No.60 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, would go to show that both the parties have compromised dispute between them before the elders and de-facto complainant has agreed to withdraw D.V.C.No.14 of 2017 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Deverakonda, Nalgonda District and also agreed to withdraw C.C.No.174 of 2018 on the file of 24th Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad (ought to have been mentioned as Hayathnagar), which is under challenge in this criminal petition and also agreed to give divorce to accused No.1. 15. The petitioners have filed documents to show that de-facto complainant has withdrawn D.V.C.No.14 of 2017, and similarly the de-facto complainant has also filed HMOP No.60 of 2017. However, the de-facto complainant has not come forward to file a petition to withdraw C.C.No.174 of 2018, which is under challenge before this Court. De-facto complainant has also stated that she has relinquished all her rights against the properties of the respondents therein and undertaken that she would not file civil and criminal cases and also agreed that her daughter to stay with accused No.1. 16. In an authority of the Hon?ble Apex Court between Kartik Chandra majee @ Kartik Chand Majee and others v. State of Jharkand and another, (2018) 13 Supreme Court Cases 747, wherein it was held as follows: ?The fact that before the Magistrate himself, the complainant compromised the matter with her husband and proceeded to prosecute the father of the husband and uncles of the husband and brothers of the husband clearly proves the case of the appellants that the entire proceedings were initiated to put pressure on the appellants due to personal grudge of the son being disinherited and separated from the family. We are of the view that in the present case, the High Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal complaint and proceedings consequent thereof.? 17. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are omnibus and not specific as to acts of each of the accused have done in order to constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Furthermore, as stated above, the de-facto complainant has also given statement on oath before the learned Magistrate Court that she will withdraw this case also along with other cases and accordingly, she has withdrawn other cases filed against the petitioners and her husband. Therefore, considering the circumstances, it is a fit case, where continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners, amounts to abuse of process of law and in order to meet the meet the ends of justice, case against the petitioners can be quashed. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and thereby the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C.No.174 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar (now XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar) are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.