IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that specific allegations against the petitioners established prima facie offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, warranting continuation of proceedings.

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.218 of 2020 on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 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. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein are the husband, mother-in-law and father-inlaw respectively of Respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

a. Marriage of Respondent No.2 was performed with Petitioner No.1/ Accused No.1 on 29.08.2018 at Chand Kalyana Mandapam, Vijayawada, as per Hindu rites and customs.

b. At the time of marriage, parents of Respondent No.1 gave dowry of Rs.15 lakhs, 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the accused.

c. After joining the conjugal life, complainant realized that Accused No.1 is impotent. All the accused by concealing the impotency of Accused No.1, performed the marriage.

d. With a view of wrap the inefficiency of Accused No.1, all the accused started harassing the complainant by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and warned her that they would perform another marriage to Accused No.1 and they drove the complainant out of the matrimonial house.

e. As such, the complainant lodged a complaint against all the accused, based on which a case in Crime No.460 of 2019 of Ongole Taluka Police Station, Prakasam District was registered and after investigation, Police filed charge sheet for the alleged offences which is numbered as C.C.No.218 of 2020 on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole.

4. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioner Nos.,1 to 3/Accused Nos.1 to 3 filed the present petition on the following grounds;

a. Registration of the crime itself is illegal as either in the FIR or in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted.

b. Respondent No.2 lived with the family of the Petitioners only for six days and thereafter she left the matrimonial home. The present complaint was filed only to force Accused No.1 and his family to meet her unlawful demand which is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

c. Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint after one year 15 days of the marriage, so in present case, Section 3 of D.P. Act is not maintainable and the delay was not explained.

d. The allegations against the Petitioners are vague and there are no specific allegations to constitute the offences as alleged.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

5. Heard Ms. B. Tapaswi, learned counsel representing Sri K. Abhiram, learned counsel for Petitioners and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Though notice was sent to Respondent No.2, same was returned with an endorsement “unclaimed”.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the Complainant lived with the petitioners only for a period of six days and thereafter she did not return to the matrimonial home. In the complaint and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant, she stated that her parents gave Rs.15 lakhs dowry and 20 sovereigns of gold, whereas in the reply notice dated 22.04.2019 got issued on her behalf, she stated that for the marriage alliance Rs.4 lakhs was paid and there was no mention of 20 sovereigns of gold. He would further submit that the present complaint was filed belatedly after 1 year 15 days of the commencement of the marriage, which is not maintainable. It is also stated that all the allegations leveled against the Petitioners are vague and baseless. Further, the case against Accused Nos.4 to 12 was quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Crl.P.No.2861 of 2020 dated 23.01.2023, as such, the proceedings against the Petitioners shall also b