IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that specific allegations are necessary in dowry harassment cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions against relatives.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/A.2,A.3 and A.4, seeking quashment of Proceedings against them in C.C.No.230 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddypalli, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, [for short ‘D.P. Act’].

Brief facts of the case of de facto complainant are :

2. (a) Both parties are inter related. A.2 is the maternal aunt of de facto Complainant.A.1 is the son of A.2 and A.3. A.4 are cousins of A.1.

(b) Marriage of de facto Complainant was performed with A.1. On demand of A.1 to A.3, parents of De facto Complainant gave 5 tulas of gold and Rs.4.00 lakhs cash to the accused. Immediately after marriage, A.1 took Complainant to Bangalore along with A.2 and A.3.

(c) After ten days of marriage, A.1 to A.3 started harassing the Complainant physically and mentally subjected to cruelty and demanded Rs.2.00 lakhs of cash as additional dowry. Accused beat her and necked her out from the house. Several times, complainant tried to join A.1 to lead marital life, but she is not permitted to step into the house.

(d) At last, in the month of November, 2021, A.4 who is the senior material aunt son came to Complainant and stated that if the (L.Ws.2 and 3) parents of Complainant did not pay additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs cash and 5 thulas gold, Complainant would not be permitted to lead conjugal life with A.1 and send marriage will be performed to A.1.

(e) Basing on the Complaint of De facto Complainant, a case in Crime No.57 of 2022 of Galiveedu Police Station was registered against A.1 to A.4 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of the investigation, Police filed a charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.230 of 2022 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddypalli, for the above-mentioned offences. The present petition is filed to quash the Proceedings in the above C.C against the Petitioners/A.2, A.3 and A.4.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the Petitioners/A.2 to A.4, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri G. Kondala Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2/De complainant. Perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/A.2 to A.4 would submit that both parties are relatives to each other and that except omnibus allegations, no specific allegations are made out against the Petitioners attracting the offence lodged against them. Learned counsel would submit that the statement of the witnesses before the Police did not prima facie establish any specific incident of harassment against respondent No.2. Learned counsel would submit that Learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner has taken cognizance of offence against Petitioners without applying the judicious mind. Learned counsel submits that without considering the fact that wife and husband are living separately and with a view to harass and to intimidate, Petitioners were falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel prays for quashment of the case against Petitioners, who are mother, father and cousin brothers of A.1.

5. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 in one voice would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against Petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations made against the Petitioners would squarely attract the offence alleged against them and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against them. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Point for Determination

6. Having heard