Specific allegations of domestic harassment must be assessed through a trial, as quashing proceedings requires clear grounds not met in this case.

ORDER :

J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.160 of 2019 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1- State and Mrs.V.Ramani, learned party-in-person/respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1 That on 26.02.2018, respondent No.2, lodged a complaint wherein she stated that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 24.08.2008 and she bore all the marriage and jewellery expenses amounting to about Rs.5 lakhs. After marriage, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 avoided meeting the couple and later demanded dowry, and respondent No.2 stated that under threats of divorce from petitioner No.1, she paid Rs.10 lakhs and faced continuous physical and mental harassment. She further stated that she was forced to undergo an abortion in the year 2009, and during the marriage of petitioner No.4 in the year 2014, she gave her gold waist belt worth Rs.7 lakhs, which was not returned, and petitioner No.3 assaulted her by holding her throat and demanding her to give divorce to petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 later accompanied petitioner No.1 to Dubai, where the harassment continued. In February 2018, petitioner No.1 came to Hyderabad, demanded dowry or property, and then went missing, prompting her to lodge a missing complaint; after petitioner No.1 was traced, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 abused and threatened her with life harm at the police station, if she did not agree to divorce, and petitioner No.1 later left for Dubai without any intimation. Basing on the said complaint, FIR No. 96 of 2018 was registered, and after conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and the said Court taken cognizance of the same and numbered as C.C. No. 160 of 2019.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of this Criminal Petition, petitioner No.4 namely Meka Satish died. By virtue of the same, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as abated against him and the said submission has not disputed by respondent No.2. In view of the same, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as abated against petitioner No.4/accused No.4.

4.2 He further submitted that the petitioners never harassed respondent No.2 and demanded dowry and respondent No.2 implicated the petitioners as accused Nos.1 to 4 only with an intention to harass them on one pretext or the other. There are no specific allegations about the demand of additional dowry and harassment. He further submitted that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.08.2008 and the same is a love marriage, which took place without consent of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Since their marriage, they are living separately and left to Dubai in the year 2014 and respondent No.2 never lived along with petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 came back to India in the year 2017 and lodged the complaint on 26.02.2018. The entire allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 have taken place at Dubai. However, respondent No.2 implicated petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of petitioner No.