Point of law: Dowry harassment - Allegation of instigation against family member of A1 - If FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing abuse of process of law.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.388 of 2018 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy district. The petitioner herein is accused No.4 in the said Calendar Case. The offences alleged against him are under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P.Act’ ).

2. Heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner herein/A.4 is that after returning to Hyderabad from United States of America, daughter of the 1st respondent/victim along with A.1, cousin of the petitioner herein/A.4 were stayed in Tarnaka for about 1½ years and during that period, the petitioner/A.4 also stayed with them. The petitioner/A.4 supported and instigated A.1 and also abused daughter of the 1st respondent/victim though he is no way concerned. Except the same, there is no other allegation much less specific allegations with regard to harassment of the daughter of the 1st respondent/victim in the entire case.

4. In the charge sheet, it is mentioned that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the 1st respondent-father of the victim as L.W.1, mother of the victim as L.W.2, younger paternal uncle of victim as L.W.3, maternal uncle of victim as L.W.4, a friend of L.W.1 as L.W.5, father-in-law of victim as L.W.6 and the victim as L.W.7.

5. It is relevant to note that the name of the petitioner herein/A.4 is not there in the complaint dated 25.09.2015 lodged by the 1st respondent. The allegations are against A.1. In the complaint itself, the 1st respondent has specifically mentioned about lodging of a complaint earlier with the Police, Suryapet Police Station, who in turn has conducted counseling between L.W.7/victim and A.1.

6. As stated above, there is no mention about the name of the petitioner/A.4 in the complaint dated 25.09.2015 and there is no allegation against the petitioner herein/A.4 in the said complaint. Though he has mentioned in the complaint dated 25.09.2015 that in 2011 both his daughter-L.W.7 and A.1 returned to India and stayed at Tarnaka but he has not mentioned about the name of the petitioner herein/A.4 in the said complaint. Whereas, in the charge sheet, it is mentioned that after returning to Hyderabad, L.W.7 along with A.1, stayed in a flat at Tarnaka which was given by her father, for about 1½ years and during the said period, the petitioner herein/A.4 also stayed with them and the petitioner herein/A.4 supported and instigated A.1 and also abused L.W.7/victim even though he is no way concerned. Thus, the above version clearly shows that it is an improved version in the charge sheet with that of complaint dated 25.09.2015. It is also relevant to note that there is no mention in the charge sheet with regard to basis on which the Investigating Officer has mentioned that the petitioner herein/A.4 has stayed with L.W.7/victim and the A.1 in Tarnaka. The charge sheet is very vague. As stated above, except the said two sentences, there is no other allegation against the petitioner herein/A.4 with regard to the harassment of L.W.7/victim by the petitioner herein/A.4. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is a distant relative of A.1.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/A.4 would submit that the petitioner herein/A.4 has nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the L.W.7/victim and A.1. He would further submit that the petitioner herein/A.4 is residing in USA and he has been unnecessarily implicated in the present case by the 1st respondent, to settle the matrimonial disputes between his daughter and A.1. Even the complaint was lodged after 6 months of the petitioner herein/A.4 leaving to USA and