IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a Magistrate must provide justifiable reasons for taking cognizance of offences against accused when police findings indicate no involvement, emphasizing the need for application of mind.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] is preferred by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.124 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler 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. Factual Background

a. Initially Police filed charge sheet only against Accused No.1, who is the husband of Respondent No.2/Complainant observing as follows:

“Actually the alleged A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR did not interfere in the family matters of LW.1 and A.1. But the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR are close relatives of A.1 and whenever there is any problem, the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 did not question the accused A.1 and not admonished A.1. So, L.W.1 mentioned the names of the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR in her complaint at the time of preparing the complaint undue influence of her Advocate, but the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR did not harass LW.1 and demanded any additional dowry amount from the parent’s house of L.W.1.

But the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR neither harassed L.W.1 nor demanded any additional dowry amount from the parent’s house of L.W.1 and they did not participate in the offence. They are innocents and they are residing separately at the various places. Hence the offences U/s.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR did not prove for the given facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore L.W.16 did not charge sheeted against the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR in this case. Due to undue influence of others and in a mood of tension L.W.1 has mentioned the names of the alleged accused A.2 G.Sreeramulu Reddy, A.3 G.Parvathamma, A.4 G.Suneetha, A.5 G.Raja Reddy, A.6 G.Suguna @ Sugunamma, A.7 Ramachandra Reddy Gundluru, A.8 G.Sreevani, A.9 Y.Lakshmi Reddy and A.10 G.Bharathi as per the FIR in her complaint. There is no evidence to prove the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR guilty for the offences.”

3. Being aggrieved by the deletion of the names of Accused Nos.2 to 10, Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition to take cognizance of the alleged offences against Accused Nos.2 to 10.

4. The contents of the protest petition, in brief, are as follows:

a. Respondent No.2/Complainant is a M.Tech., Post Graduate and they are the residents of Piler. Whereas, accused are natives of Boyapalle. Marriage of the complainant with Accused No.1 took place on 12.06.2014 at Rayachoti. At the time of marriage, parents of the complainant gave dowry and observed other formalities as per the demands made by Accused No.1 and his family members.

b. Accused No.1 has been working as an Executive Engineer, Irrigation and CAD Department at Tirupati. Soon after the marriage, Accused No.1 had set up his family at Tirupati. Accused No.1 purchased household articles, furniture, which was funded by the father of the Complainant.

c. Accused No.1 at the instance of Accused No.5, started harassing the Complainant to get additional amounts from her father, to invest the same in the real estate business. Complainant became pregnant in November, 2014. During 9th month of her pregnancy, she was taken to her parents’ house for delivery. Accused Nos.,1 to 10 attended Seemantham function, which was arranged by the parents of the Complainant, wherein, they picked up quarrels and insulted the Complainant and her family members. After the function, they left by demanding additional dowry. Accused No.3 started canvassing that the Complainant is not a suitable match for her son. The couple was blessed with a daughter on 30.05.2015 at Tirupati. Accused Nos.1 to 3 expressed their unhappiness since a female child was born