SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(AP) 576

In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
Amit Kumar Yadav & Others – Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana rep.by Public Prosecutor & Another – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2091 of 2015
Decided On : 11-09-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Akshat Sanghi, Advocate
For the Respondents: The Public Prosecutor (Telangana)

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code – Petitioners, who are A-1 to A-4 in C.C.No.150 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class filed this petition under Section 482. to quash the proceedings in the said case. learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from the police final report, which is outcome of the report of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant none other than the wife of A-1 vide Cr.No.1 of brief facts of the case from the police report as well as the investigation material in nut-shell is that the marriage of the petitioner/A-1 was performed Gorakhpur as per marriage invitation at page 12 and 13 of the petition and in Hindi and English translation and de facto complainant presented the report on and the crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against four accused. Of whom, A-1 is husband of de facto complainant, A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1 and A-4 is the brother of A-1, all are residents of de facto complainant address shown as Centenary colony District. LWs.2 and 3 among eight witnesses shown in the charge sheet are father and mother of LW.1, LWs 4 and 5 are brothers of LW.1 and LW.6 is the neighbour of her house –Held, Court also in this regard dealt in detail in Crl.P.No.5324 of 2015 dated 01-09-2015 by referring to catena of decisions including Division Bench of this Court in Inder Raj Agarwal v. Union of India ((2015) 4 ALT 596 DB). Thus the complaint filed by the de facto complainant that was referred to the police investigation by the Magistrate and the police final report filed pursuant thereto is the outcome from the suppression of material fact of earlier deed of divorce between the de facto complainant and A-1 through elders amicably and the same reiterated referring in the settlement executed immediately after 04-06-2014 some settlement arrived earlier at Godavarikhani of Karimnagar District also from the panchayat held and pursuant to which, the items belongs to the de facto complainant and her father lying with accused persons were also returned, the continuation of criminal proceedings there is nothing but abuse of process as held in expressions referred supra as it is a fit case to quash the calender case. It is also needless to say as held Inspector of Police, Chennai ((2004) 8 SCC 100)that the complaint itself discloses while the de facto complainant residing with accused at his place and came out from there i.e. the main cause of action besides marriage in occurring some cause of action to maintain the complainant at her place of parents not sustainable by referring to Section 177 and 178 – Criminal Petition is allowed

Judgment :

1. The petitioners, who are A-1 to A-4 in C.C.No.150 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, Karimnagar District, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the said case.

2. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from the police final report, which is outcome of the report of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant none other than the wife of A-1 vide Cr.No.1 of 2014 dated 25-03-2015.

3. The brief facts of the case from the police report as well as the investigation material in nut-shell is that the marriage of the petitioner/A-1 was performed on 22-06-2004 in Charan Paduka Kutir, Barhalganj, Gorakhpur as per marriage invitation at page 12 and 13 of the petition and in Hindi and English translation and de facto complainant presented the report on 04-01-2014 and the crime was registered on 25-03-2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against four accused. Of whom, A-1 is husband of de facto complainant, A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1 and A-4 is the brother of A-1, all are residents of Gorakhpur, Barhalgunj, Uttarpradesh. The de facto complainant address shown as Centenary colony, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. LWs.2 and 3 among eight witnesses shown in the charge sheet are father and mother of LW.1, LWs 4 and 5 are brothers of LW.1 and LW.6 is the neighbour of her house.

4. The gist of the complaint report dated 04-01-2014, which is a private complaint filed before the Learned Magistrate, Manthani referred for police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. thereafter in registering the crime later supra in nut shell that after the marriage performed at Gorakhpur of Uttarpradesh, besides what her parents presented of 4.00 lakhs dowry with 8 tolas of gold and other house hold articles including a bike worth Rs.2,00,000/- in meeting demand for marriage, the accused persons about one year after happy marital life in the wedlock started harassing physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- by abusing in filthy and offensive language in saying she is not looking well and beat her indiscriminately and even her father to the demand paid Rs.20,000/- to A-1 with no change even after panchayaths held and assurances were made from their side to treat well, that even on 04-01-2013 she was beaten with stick and sustained head injury and she was necked out by snatching gold ornaments with wearing cloths and apparel and they threatened with dire consequences and demanding through phone for additional dowry and that on 30-06-2013 all the accused visited her parents house at Kamanpur at about 5.30 pm for discussions and started abusing her in filthy language demanding additional dowry and beat, with kitchen knife threatened and she approached Kamanpur police station and the police advised to take the matter before elders but invain. The police final report from the said report registered as crime supra reads that LW.7 Investigating Officer who registered the crime made efforts to secure presence of accused to counsel them but invain and took up investigation by LW.7 and LW.8 by examination of LWs 2 to 6. It revealed all the accused are residents of Shastry Nagar in Uttar Pradesh harassed LW.1 physically and mentally for additional dowry and ultimately on 04-01-2013 she was beaten and necked out from their matrimonial house and from there she is residing at her parents house and later all accused continued their harassment through phone calls for additional dowry and came to parents house of the de facto complainant on 30-06-2013 for discussions and abused in filthy language and thereby committed the offences supra liable for punishment.

5. Not even a single witness examined from the place of the accused as the marriage performed at Gorakhpur of Uttar Pradesh and the de facto complainant






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top