Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 787 (TS)

Muthyala Sridhar Reddy v. State of Telangana

2024-09-21

K.SUJANA

body2024
ORDER : Crl.P.No.9020 of 2023 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 and Crl.P.No.9013 of 20233 is filed the petitioner/accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6656 of 2022 on the file of IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, wherein the offences alleged against them are for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P.Act’). 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant is the father of victim, who filed complaint on 23.08.2021 before the police stating that he performed the marriage of his daughter with accused No.1 (A.1) on 24.04.2018 which was an arranged marriage and spent an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs towards marriage expenses, that his son-in-law demanded movable and immovable property as dowry, he gave 1 kg gold to his daughter which is in the possession of mother of A.1, Rs.10 Lakhs cash which is handed over to the father of A.1 and Rs.10 Lakhs to the sister of A.1 i.e., A.4 and also gave 2 Kgs of silver and other household articles. After marriage, the daughter of 2nd respondent joined and resided at her in-laws house and during her stay, her in-laws started abusing her stating that marriage was not done according to their expectation and started demanding additional dowry of Rs.25 Lakhs. A.1 and the daughter of complainant shifted to U.S.A, and during their stay, her sister-in-law, who is a resident of U.S.A, insisted her brother to register the house in his name which was in the name of the victim and during their stay at U.S.A, the victim was diagnosed with Thyroid cancer, as such, she left the job and completely depended on her husband and in-laws and they used to abuse her for financial matters. Thereafter, when they visited India, the son-in-law left his daughter and went to U.S.A, by cheating the Embassy showing his daughter’s medical certificates as a reason, during pandemic period. Later in April, 2021, the victim went to U.S.A, and stayed with her younger sister, but A.1 never took care of his daughter and also terminated their apartment lease agreement and landlord issued notice to her daughter to vacate the apartment. Later in April, 2021, the victim went to U.S.A, and stayed with her younger sister, but A.1 never took care of his daughter and also terminated their apartment lease agreement and landlord issued notice to her daughter to vacate the apartment. It is further stated that A.1 cheated him to cause wrongful loss physically and mentally and the in-laws of the victim used to demand for additional dowry. As such, he filed the complaint against the petitioners to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint police registered case in Cr.No.50 of 2021. 3. Heard Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that A.1 and victim i.e., daughter of 2nd respondent got married in the year 2018 and they resided in U.S.A, even before the marriage and subsequent to marriage, A.1 relocated to California to stay along with the daughter of 2nd respondent. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.9020 of 2023 are residents of Nizamabad. In July 2019, the daughter of 2nd respondent was diagnosed with Thyroid cancer for which she underwent surgery, treatment, and care in Stanford, U.S.A, and the entire expenses were borne by A.1 from his earnings and through Insurance. Subsequent to the treatment and surgery, she was brought to India where she was properly taken care at her parents place including A.1 by staying along with the daughter of 2nd respondent. Subsequent to the treatment and surgery, she was brought to India where she was properly taken care at her parents place including A.1 by staying along with the daughter of 2nd respondent. Later petitioners came to know that subsequently, disputes arose between A.1 and his wife leading to few differences and the 2nd respondent got registered FIR No.914 of 2021 of Pet Basheerabad Police Station against A.2 and A.3 who are in-laws of the victim and in the said FIR one J. Rama Rao, who was a close relative of A.1 was arrayed as A.3 for the offences under Section 307, 498-A, 342, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and charge sheet has been filed vide C.C.No.1079 of 2021 before the XXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, wherein, only A.1 herein was charge sheeted for the offences alleged under Section 323 and 506 of I.P.C, and during the course of investigation, the defacto complainant has given a requisition to delete the offence alleged under Section 498-A of I.P.C, as a case is already filed vide F.I.R.No.50 of 2021 of P.S. I.T.Corridor, Cyberabad. 5. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there are no allegations pertaining to cruelty on the daughter of 2nd respondent and in FIR No.914 of 2021, the petitioners herein are not arrayed as accused but in the present crime, they were arrayed as A.4 to A.6 by suppressing F.I.R.No.914 of 2021. It is the case of 2nd respondent that petitioners herein used to interfere in the marital life of A.1 and victim on the premise that marriage was not performed according to their expectation and started demanding additional dowry of Rs.25 Lakhs. Further, the petitioners herein along with other accused have pressurized the 2nd respondent to register the house at Nandi Bills in the name of A.1. The petitioners/A.5 and A.6 are the paternal uncle and aunt of A.1 and petitioner/A.4 is the sister of A.1. The allegations made against these petitioners are false and baseless and only to harass the petitioners, this complaint is filed. The record shows that the disputes are matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife and more particularly, a strained relationship has been converted into a case of dowry harassment. No allegations whatsoever attract the ingredients under any of the alleged offences. 6. The record shows that the disputes are matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife and more particularly, a strained relationship has been converted into a case of dowry harassment. No allegations whatsoever attract the ingredients under any of the alleged offences. 6. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra and another Vs Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 regarding the role of accused in the commission of offence. He also contended that A.4 being a resident of U.S.A, since 2014, she attended the marriage of her brother and except that she has nothing to do with the disputes between A.1 and his wife. Since she is living separately in U.S.A, and only with regard to the health of victim, she used to talk to A.1. He further submitted that the charge sheet is bereft of specific allegations against the petitioners. Except making vague and omnibus allegations there are no cogent evidence and material on record that these petitioners harassed the victim demanding additional dowry. Hence, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in both the criminal petitions. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that A.4 who is residing in U.S.A., involved in the affairs of A.1 and his wife and A.5 and A.6 demanded additional dowry. Therefore, the allegations made against the petitioners are serious in nature. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss these petitions. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material placed on record, the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of I.P.C. To constitute the offence under Section 406 of I.P.C, the allegations must prove that the petitioners committed breach of trust against the victim. 9. Section 405 of I.P.C. reads as under : “405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust". 10. 10. In the present case, petitioners were not entrusted with any property or dishonestly misappropriated for their own use and there is no evidence to prove the said allegations. Hence, Section 406 of I.P.C, is not applicable to the petitioners. Further to attract the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C, there must be dishonest inducement for delivery of property. But no such allegations are there against the petitioners. There are no allegations against these petitioners that they induced 2nd respondent family and believing the same they delivered any property in favour of these petitioners. Hence, Section 420 of I.P.C., is also not attracted to the petitioners. 11. The allegations are also leveled against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. To constitute the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C, the ingredients of the said section should satisfy i.e., there must be averment to show that these petitioners who are the relatives of A.1, subjected the victim to cruelty and caused such willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman or harassment of a 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. 12. In the present case, the only allegation against A.5 and A.6 is that they used to interfere in the marital life of A.1 and the daughter of 2nd respondent saying that the marriage was not performed to their expectation and they have also demanded Rs.25 Lakhs additional dowry, whereas, according to the petitioners, immediately after the marriage, A.1 and the daughter of 2nd respondent went to U.S.A and lived happily till they came to India for treatment of victim. In the statement of the victim it is stated that the petitioners/A.5 and A.6 along with other accused used to insult her, that the marriage was not performed upto their expectations that is immediately after the marriage, they left for U.S.A, and thereafter there are no allegations against these petitioners. Except the said allegation there are no specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to the disputes between A.1 and his wife. Except the said allegation there are no specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to the disputes between A.1 and his wife. The statement of the victim also shows that the main allegations are against A.1. Hence, there are no averments to constitute the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., against these petitioners. As such, continuation of proceedings against petitioners/A.4 and A.5 is nothing but abuse of process of law. 13. The main allegation against petitioner/A.4 is that she insisted A.1 to get it registered the house at Nandi Hills which was in the name of victim, in his name. Admittedly, since the year 2014, A.4 is residing in U.S.A. and she did not reside with A.1 or her parents. There are no specific averments in the complaint to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner/A.4. However, prior to filing of the present crime, the 2nd respondent also lodged another complaint vide F.I.R.No.914 of 2021, wherein the petitioners herein are not parties. However, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preethi Gupta Vs State of Jharkand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599, the relatives of the husband/accused who are not residing in the house of A.1 cannot be roped into only on omnibus allegations. As the allegations made against the petitioners herein are only omnibus in nature, the proceedings initiated against them is nothing but abuse of process of law, and the same is liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, Crl.P.No.9020 of 2023 and Crl.P.No.9013 of 2023 are allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in both the criminal petitions in C.C.No.6656 of 2022 on the file of IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.