Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 948 (TS)

Gopal Jayasree v. State of Telangana

2025-08-29

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14743 of 2019 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’) 2. Brief facts of the case: Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 05.06.2018 at about 12:00 hours stating that for the past two years her husband/accused No.1 had failed to provide any financial support to her or their minor son, deliberately changed his contact details in the USA and absconded to an unknown place. She further stated that her in-laws i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were also withholding his address and phone number, thereby isolating her and they colluded together to demand additional dowry of Rs.25,00,000/- and gold and continuously harassed her, thereby, spoiled her marital life and the future prospects of her son. Since her parents were unable to meet the unlawful demands, she had been compelled to depend entirely on them, which caused her severe mental and physical suffering. She specifically named her husband, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and other relatives residing in India and the USA as responsible for such harassment. She also prayed that her husband’s passport (No. K8792431, issued at New York) be impounded and his whereabouts in the USA be traced to secure his presence in India. She requested that the accused be punished for dowry harassment and cruelty. On receipt of the complaint, the Police registered the present complaint and took up investigation. Pursuant to investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was numbered as C.C.No.14743 of 2019 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against accused No.1 and the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5. 3. Heard Mr. Vemulapati Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Chaitanya Mithra, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs. Prethi Pawar, learned counsel, representing Mr. Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: 4.1. 3. Heard Mr. Vemulapati Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Chaitanya Mithra, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs. Prethi Pawar, learned counsel, representing Mr. Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence, much less the alleged offences levelled against them. The marriage of accused No.1 was performed with respondent No.2 on 18.2.2014 and since then they are living in the USA and respondent No.2 never lived with petitioner Nos.1 and 2. 4.2. He further submitted that even according to the complaint, entire allegations are levelled against accused No.1, which arose in the USA. However, respondent No.2, with an intention to dissolve the disputes between her and accused No.1, roped all the family members of accused No.1 i.e., the petitioners, into the present crime by making omnibus allegations, as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, petitioner No.3 is the sister and petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of accused No.4. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are residing at Hanamkonda. Petitioner No.3 is a housewife and petitioner No.4 is working as software engineer and they are residing in the USA. At no point of time, the petitioners harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry nor committed any criminal breach of trust. Hence, the offences under Sections 4 98-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act are not attracted against the petitioners. 4.3. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer without properly conducting investigation filed the charge sheet on 28.01.2019 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, and the learned Magistrate without examining the same, without applying his mind has taken the cognizance, especially without giving any reasons and the same is contrary to law. 4.4. He also submitted that even if the allegations in the report and the statement of respondent No.2 and other witnesses are considered on their face value, there is no material to attract the offences punishable under Sections 4 98-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amounts to clear abuse of process of law. 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 5.1. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amounts to clear abuse of process of law. 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that they have harassed respondent No.2 physically and mentally for additional dowry. The witnesses in their statements specifically mentioned the role of each of the petitioner and the ingredients under Sections 4 98-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are attracted against the petitioners. Whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not will be revealed after full-fledged trial only and the petitioners are not made out any ground to quash the proceedings and the criminal petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. Analysis: 6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, petitioner No.3 is the sister and petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of accused No.1. The marriage of accused No.1 was performed with respondent No.2 on 18.12.2014. According to the complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that after the marriage, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 lived together in the USA and they were blessed with one child on 14.09.2015. Even according to the allegations, accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry and in the year 2016 and he forcibly sent respondent No.2 to India and since then she has been residing with her parents. 7. The record reveals that major allegations are levelled against accused No.1 that he demanded additional dowry and dragged her of his house forcibly in the month of April 2016. The only allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they supported accused No.1 in demanding additional dowry. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners that they committed any criminal breach of trust to attract the ingredients under Section 506 of the IPC. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet, the alleged allegations are pertaining to the year 2016, which were happened when respondent No.2 is residing in the USA with accused No.1. 8. The record further reveals that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are residing at Hanamkonda and they are aged about 58 and 72 years respectively. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet, the alleged allegations are pertaining to the year 2016, which were happened when respondent No.2 is residing in the USA with accused No.1. 8. The record further reveals that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are residing at Hanamkonda and they are aged about 58 and 72 years respectively. Petitioner No.3 is a housewife and petitioner No.4 is discharging his duties as a software engineer in the USA. The specific case of the petitioners is that after marriage, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are living together in the USA and they never lived together along with petitioner Nos.1 and 2 at Hanamkonda nor with petitioner Nos.3 and 4. 9. The record reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without reflecting his satisfaction and without assigning any reasons. It is trite law that there need not be a detailed order while taking cognizance but should reflect the objective satisfaction of the Presiding Officer. 10. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , [ 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends of justice. 11. It is also relevant to mention that in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles that were invoked to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 4 98-A, 506 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961, and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in so far as they related to the husband’s aunt and cousin, as the allegations against them were found to be omnibus and general, bereft of specific overt acts, resting merely on hearsay evidence, and further weakened by the fact that they resided separately from the matrimonial home. The Court held that dragging such distant relatives into criminal prosecution, in the absence of clear particulars of harassment or dowry demand, squarely attracted the Bhajan Lal principles, and permitting the proceedings to continue would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 12. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geddam Jhansi supra and also in the case of Ch.Bhajan Lal supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuance of proceedings against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 4 98-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, would amount to abuse of process of law. 13. The inherent powers of Court under Section 4 82 of the Cr.P.C. be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court. When the allegations in the complaint presented by respondent No.2 to the police or the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not constituting any prima facie case for the offences Sections 4 98-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners for the foregoing reasons, this Court can exercise its power, in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ch.Bhajanlal supra 14. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5. 15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act in C.C.No.14743 of 2019 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed