IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a Magistrate must apply their mind to the allegations before taking cognizance, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of process.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.340 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur 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’].

2. The contents of the complaint, in brief, are as follows:

a. The marriage of the complainant took place with one B.Hari Kumar on 21.04.2016. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and 10 tula gold. Fifteen days after their marriage, during the absence of her husband, Accused Nos.1 to 4 caused harassment by demanding additional dowry. Accused No.4 used to convey that the husband of the complainant is not good. Accused No.4 manhandled and necked out the complainant from their house.

d. Basing on the report given by the complainant, a case was registered by the police. During the course of the investigation, the investigating officer examined and recorded the statements of the complainant and L.Ws.2 & 3. L.Ws.2 and 3 stated that the complainant falsely foisted Accused Nos.2 to 4, even though they never harassed, but with the hope that Accused No.1 might have changed her attitude. The Crime culminated into C.C.No. 340 of 2017, which is sought to be quashed by the Petitioners.

3. The following are the grounds sought for the quashment of the proceedings;

a. The allegation that in absence of her husband Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 have harassed Respondent No.2 for additional dowry is created for the purpose of attracting the provisions of law, which amounts to abuse of process of law.

b. Investigating Officer has categorically observed that no offence is made out against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 and on the other hand he prays the Court below to punish the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, which clearly establishes that the investigating officer has not properly investigated the case and filed the charge sheet on mere assumptions and presumptions.

c. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 never lived together with family of the husband of Respondent No.2.

d. There is contradictory plea in the charge sheet and the Court below has taken cognizance of the offence mechanically without any proper appreciation of the charge sheet as such the C.C.No.340 of 2017 is liable to be quashed.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent No.1. Despite notice, none appeared for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in elaboration to the contents stated in the Petition, would submit that Petitioner No.1 is the mother-inlaw of the complainant/respondent No.2, and she is working as Junior Assistant in Irrigation Department. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 and her husband Hari Kumar were harassing the Accused No.1 to hand over 50% of her salary for which she refused, she has lodged a complaint in Muchumari Police Station, which is Crime No.73 of 2016 on 11.03.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of the IPC. It is contended that the present complaint has been lodged as a counter blast to the case filed by the Petitioner/Accused No1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner/Accused Nos.,2 and 4 are son and daughter of Accused No1 and the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is the brother of Accused No.1. It is pointed out that the Accused No.2 is living with his family at Kurnool, Accused No.4 is also married and is living with her husband at Kurnool, whereas Accused No.3 is living separately and he has no connection with the family affairs of the de facto complaina