SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 151

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. SRI DEVI, J.
B. Sharath Kumar Goud - Petitioner
Versus
Usha Rani & Another - Respondents
Crl. R.C. No. 327 of 2011
Decided On : 16-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T. Nagarjuna Reddy.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor TG.

The plea of alibi is a disputed question of fact and cannot be accepted at the stage of seeking discharge.

Headnote:

Dowry Prohibition Act - Offences - Sections 498-A of I.P.C., Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a complaint against the accused for offences under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused allegedly harassed the complainant for additional dowry and assaulted her.

Finding of the Court:

The trial Court held that the veracity of the allegations against the accused is a matter of evidence and cannot be decided at the stage of seeking discharge.

Issues: The issues revolved around the timing of the complaint, the alleged family panchayat, and the plea of alibi raised by the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The plea of alibi is a disputed question of fact and cannot be accepted at the stage of seeking discharge. The truth or otherwise of the allegations can only be decided during the course of trial.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, upholding the trial Court's order.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision case is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, in Crl.M.P.No.940 of 2010 in C.C.No.274 of 2010, dated 16.11.2010, dismissing the said petition filed by the revision petitioner/A-1 under Section 245 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The 1st respondent/complainant herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioner/A-1 and A-2 to A-6, who are the parents, brother, sister and sister-in-law of A-1 respectively, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 109 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, alleging that her marriage with A-1 was performed as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 17.06.2006 at Gadwal and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, 20 tolas of gold ornaments apart from clothes and utensils worth Rs.1,50,000/- were given towards dowry to the accused. Subsequently, the complainant joined A-1 and led marital life for a period of three months at her in-laws house. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 to A-5 started harassing the complainant both mentally and physically by demanding an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards additional dowry. A-1 to A-6 also threatened her by stating that A-1 will marry another woman if she fails to comply with their demand. The complainant endured the ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of the accused with a fond hope that A-1 would realize his folly and take her back. However, on 22.06.2007, A-1 has filed O.P.No.479 of 2007 under Section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of divorce and the same is pending adjudication. The mediations, which took place at the intervention of elders to settle the dispute also, failed. However, A-1 to A6 have demanded the brothers of the complainant to execute a registered gift deed in favoujr of A-1 in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.837 situated near Railway station, Gadwal, towards additional dowry, for which they refused. It is further stated that A-1 assaulted her with a chappal, A-2, A-5 and A6 manhandled her and also abused her in filthy language and A-3 and A-4 assaulted the younger brother of the complainant and that all the accused instigated her to commit suicide by consuming poison. Hence, the complaint.

3. The aforesaid private complaint was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Thereafter, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gadwal Town Police Station registered the complaint as a case in Crime No.132 of 2010 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up investigation. Eventually, after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid under the aforesaid offences against A-1 only, deleting the names of A-2 to A-6 as no offence is made out against them. Hence, the case was taken on file by the trial Court against the revision petitioner/A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.274 of 2010.

4. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/A-1 filed the aforesaid Crl.M.P.No.940 of 2010 seeking to discharge him from the offences alleged against him, inter alia, contending that the Investigating Officer, while deleting the names of A-2 to A-6, erred in charge sheeting A-1 basing on the very same statements of the witnesses; that in the counter filed by the 1st respondent/complainant in O.P.No.479 of 2007, it is specifically stated that in the month of August, 2007, the revision petitioner/A-1 necked her out of the house and as such it is evident that the de facto complainant has been living away from the society of the revision petitioner/A-1 from August, 2007

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top