Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21071
APHC010076652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1235/2022 Between:
1. KONGARA MOHANA MURTHY, S/O.LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.1-53, 2ND WARD, CHANDAPURAM VILLAGE, NANDIGAMA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. KONGARA RUPA VANI, W/O.K.MOHANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.1-53, 2ND WARD, CHANDAPURAM VILLAGE, NANDIGAMA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. KANTHAMANENI MADHURA SRAVANTHI, W/O.VIDYA SAGAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.1-53, 2ND WARD, CHANDAPURAM VILLAGE, NANDIGAMA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT OF A.P.
AT AMARAVATHI.
2. KONGARA NAVYATHA, W/O.KONGARA NARENDRA NADH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O.MUPPALLA VILLAGE, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.420 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,18602 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,19613
2. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents and Petitioner/ Accused No.4 is the sister of Accused No.1.
3. The contents of the complaint, in brief, are as follows:
a. The marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 had taken place on
08.03.2018 at Kamma Kalyanamandapam, Nandigama. At the time of marriage, on the demand of Accused Nos.1 to 3, her parents gave dowry of Rs.23,00,000/-
and also presented 320 grams of gold.
b. After the marriage, Accused No.1 used to stay away from Respondent No.2 and he did not show any interest in leading marital life with her. Accused No.1 used to ask her to go to her parental home. He also used to abuse her in filthy language. On knowing these facts through Respondent No.2, her parents came to her matrimonial home and asked Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 about the behavior of Accused No.1, for which, they assured that Accused No.1 would look after Respondent No.2 well and pacified the matter. However, there was no change in the attitude of Accused No.1 and continued his harassment.
1 for short „Cr.P.C‟
2 for short „IPC‟
for short „D.P. Act‟
c. While so, Petitioner/Accused No.4 came to India from Germany on the occasion of marriage of her cousin and all the Accused made Respondent No.2 to sign on some papers and documents forcibly.
d. Thereafter one year, Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to harass Respondent No.2 both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry, made her to sign on some white papers, and documents and necked her out of the house. The efforts made by the parents of Respondent No.2 and the elders for settlement of the issue, also proved futile.
e. Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to demand divorce by threatening that they would cause troubles with the help of the documents which were signed by Respondent No.2.
f. Basing on the report of Respondent No.2, a case in Cr.No.433 of 2021 was registered on the file of Chandralapadu Police Station for the offence under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.
g. The Sub Inspector, Chandralapadu Police Station, after completion of investigation in the above crime, filed charge sheet which was numbered as C.C.No.420 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama for the said offences.
Grounds Sought for quashment:
4. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against them, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 filed the present petition on the following grounds:
a. From the reading of the complaint as well as the charge sheet, Respondent No.2 was necked out from the matrimonial home on 24.02.2020, whereas, the present complaint was lodged on 17.12.2021 and no explanation for the said delay was given either in the FIR or in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
b. On 27.03.2020 there was a settlement between the parties in the presence of elders and the same was also reduced into writing and in view of the terms of the said agreement, Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 have jointly filed H.M.O.P.15 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolving their marriage by mutual consent and suppressing the same, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint.
c. The allegations leveled against the Petitioners are false and only to harass the Petitioners, the present complaint has been lodged.
d. There are no specific overt acts made against the Petitioners and hence, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law.
Arguments Advanced at t
