IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Mr. K. Shri Ram Reddy, S/o K. Vikram Reddy and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor and Another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 5914 of 2021
Decided On : 03-12-2021
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 498-a, 406 and 509 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 41-A and 482 - Offence of Harassment of women – Criminal breach of trust – Intending to insult modesty of women - Seeking to quash the proceedings - De facto complainant is that her marriage was held with A-1 in presence of family and friends and at time of wedding, her parents gage jewellery worth about Rs. 10.23 crores approximately and her maternal grand mother and maternal aunt gifted her each and few of her other relatives gave her gifts in form of cash amounting out of love and affection - There was a puja at her in-laws' house where she received gifts in form of cash amounting and she handed over her jewellery worth Rs. 10.23 crores approximately and cash to her mother-in-law for safe custody - During their stay at Goa, after her mother-in-law’s continuous persuasion and assurance that her husband will not share room with his friend, her husband’s behaviour became unbearable and he constantly humiliated her in front of other members of the group by using derogatory language and called me a ‘Bitch’ in front of his cousins - She felt humiliated as it resulted in insult to her modesty - Whether the offences alleged in the FIR are made out or not - Held, court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases - FIR is not an encyclopedia - Admittedly, investigation is pending and several things have to come to light - At this stage it is not appropriate for this Court to quash proceedings - It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for accused that Police have issued notice under Section 41-A Cr. P.C. but petitioner’s apprehension is at the behest of complainant they may arrest the accused - Court finds no force in the apprehension expressed by learned Senior Counsel. Police, having issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., without obtaining the permission from magistrate concerned, cannot arrest the petitioners – Order accordingly.
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 in connection with Crime No. 297 of 2021 of P.S. W.PS, DD, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-a, 406 and 509 of the Indian Penal code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The Case of the de facto complainant is that her marriage was held with A-1 on 25.11.2020 in the presence of family and friends and at the time of wedding, her parents gage jewellery worth about Rs. 10.23 crores approximately and her maternal grand mother and maternal aunt gifted her Rs. 5,00,000/- each and few of her other relatives gave her gifts in the form of cash amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- out of love and affection. There was a puja (Satyanarayana vratham) at her in-laws' house on 26.11.2020 where she received gifts in the form of cash amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- and she handed over her jewellery worth Rs. 10.23 crores approximately and cash of Rs. 22,00,000/- to her mother-in-law for safe custody. Right from the date of her marriage, her husband/A-1 was indifferent towards her and used to consume alcohol and watch TV shows during night and was not keen on spending time with her. On 03.12.2020, she wanted to resume her internship at Apollo hospital but her mother in-law did not allow her to go to the hospital and asked to stay at home. Her father made all the payments for the honeymoon bookings at Udaipur and they stayed there from 09.12.2020 to 13.12.2020 and while returning back, her husband started humiliating her making his intention clear for unlawful material gain from her parents that he was not given any costly car and that her family is a waste on that account. He called her a dog and hit her in the presence of his parents. She had bruises but her mother-in-law did not shop him and moreover, she went to the extent of saying “Oh my son is very strong”. On 14.12.2020, she resumed her internship and that night she used her phone for a short while in the bed room and her husband got extremely impatient and angry and when she was checking messages, he hit his phone to the floor which broke into pieces and shouted at her saying that he wants to divorce her. On 19.12.2020, herself and her husband had an argument on the proposed visit to Goa along with his cousins and friends for the new year and he insisted that his close friend Huzaif Ali Khan would share his bedroom with them to which she refused as it was not appropriate for newly married couple to share a room with a male friend. Regarding that issue, he lost his temper and threatened to divorce her in front of his parents and went to the extent of threatening to pack his clothes and leave the house. Her mother-in-law, instead of correcting her son’s behaviour, shouted at her that it would be better if they take a divorce and snatched her phone and switched it off and threatened not to talk to her parents about this issue. On 25.12.2020, her husband abruptly left her on the road and she was deeply anguished and stayed back at her parents’ house. On the next day morning, her mother-in-law called her and threatened to return back to her in-laws place. During their stay at Goa, after her mother-in-law’s continuous persuasion and assurance that her husband will not share the room with his friend, her husband’s behaviour became unbearable and he constantly humiliated her in front of other members of the group by using derogatory language and called me a ‘Bitch’ in front of his cousins. She felt humiliated as it resulted in insult to her modesty. On 03.01.2021 from the airport itself, her husband asked her parents to pick her up and her brother brought her to her parents' house. Her matrimonial life has come to an end ail of a sudden on account of such a drastic decision taken by her in-laws based on some false information given by her husband resulting in abandoning her within 40 days of her marriage. Her husb
State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others
Subsequent events, such as divorce and remarriage, can be considered in determining the abuse of process of law and the justification for quashing criminal proceedings.
In dowry-related cases, lack of specific allegations against distant relatives can warrant quashing of proceedings to prevent misuse of legal processes.
The court emphasized the need to curtail vague and omnibus accusations in dowry harassment cases and prevent the abuse of the court's process.
Inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent misuse of criminal law, quashing only when FIR doesn't disclose an offence.
Vague and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes do not justify criminal proceedings against relatives; specific accusations are necessary to avoid misuse of legal provisions.
Vague and general allegations in dowry harassment cases do not constitute a prima facie case, necessitating specific allegations to prevent misuse of legal provisions.
Vague allegations in matrimonial disputes can amount to abuse of legal processes; specific details are essential for prosecution under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.