2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 698
APHC010023442020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 843/2020 Between:
Shaik </b>Apsarrunisa </b>and </b>O</b>thers </b>.</b>.</b>.</b>P</b>E</b>T</b></b>IT</b></b>IO</b>NE</b>R/ACCUSE</b>D(S)
AND S</b>haik </b>Apsara </b>and </b>O</b>thers </b>.</b>.</b>.</b>R</b>ES</b>PO</b>N</b>D</b>EN</b>T/CO</b>MPLAIN</b>AN</b>T(S</b>)
C</b>o</b>u</b>ns</b>e</b></b>l</b> f</b>o</b>r</b> t</b></b></b>he</b></b> P</b>e</b></b>t</b></b></b>it</b></b></b>io</b>ne</b></b>r</b>/accu</b>s</b>e</b></b>d(S):
1. SHAIK AMEENA REHMANI C</b>o</b>u</b>n</b>s</b></b>e</b>l</b> f</b>o</b>r</b> t</b>he</b> R</b>e</b>s</b></b>po</b>n</b>d</b>e</b>n</b>t</b>/co</b>mpl</b>ain</b>an</b>t</b>(S):
1. RAMESH KOMMA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the petitioners/Respondent Nos.2 to 5, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.56 of 2019 on the file of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur.
2. Petitioners herein are the mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and co-sister of the Respondent No.2/complainant respectively.
3. Contents of the complaint in brief:
a. The marriage of the complainant was performed on 14.02.2013 with one Irfan Basha who is the son of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein, as per Muslim rites and customs at Guntur. At the time of complainant’s marriage, her parents presented an amount of Rs.6 lakhs, 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments, motor cycle and Rs.1 lakh worth household articles towards dowry. After marriage, the complainant joined her husband at her in-laws house at Tenali. They lived happily for some time and then the complainant left to Malaysia along with her husband.
b. During their stay at Malaysia, her husband used to come in a drunken state every day and quarrel with her. After she got conceived, she returned to India and was blessed with a baby girl on 10.02.2015. Since then, her husband used to harass her with a demand to bring Rs.10 lakhs towards additional dowry, for which all his family members supported him. In spite of that, she continued her marital life with her husband with a fond hope that he may change his attitude. Meanwhile, she got conceived for second time and gave birth to a female child on 30.09.2018.
c. As the second issue is also a female child, her husband and in-laws neither turned up to see her and the new born child nor to came to the naming ceremony, with a demand to bring Rs.10 lakhs, otherwise they would perform another marriage to her husband. Even though the matter was placed before the elders, the complainant’s husband and in-laws demanded the same and also stated that if they fail to give the amount, they demand divorce from the complainant and also threatened with dire consequences. The complainant also alleged that her husband is having an illegal affair with another lady.
d. Basing on the report given by the complainant, D.V.C.No.56 of 2019 is filed before the Protection Officer, A.P. Women Development and Child Welfare one stop center on 31.05.2019.
4. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners filed the present petition seeking quashment of the case against them on the following grounds:
a. The petitioner Nos.1 to 4 never stayed under same roof with the complainant except for a few days after the marriage. Soon after the marriage, complainant went to Malaysia on 22.02.2013 along with her husband as he works as a Quality Control Inspector at Sapura Kenchana Petroleum in Perak State, Malaysia.
b. The complainant is not interested in staying at Malaysia and she used to quarrel with her husband for silly things and used to suspect him. On her wish and continuous demands, he found a job at Mumbai and shifted to India in 2016. Later, all of sudden, without any word to her husband, the complainant went to her paternal home.
c. The petitioners are respectable persons; they never interfered in personal and family issues of complainant. In fact, the complainant never bothered about her in-laws as the petitioners are living in a different place far from the complainant d. All the allegations made by the complainant are false, concocted. The prime motto behind the array of false allegations shows the intention of the complainant to indulge the petitioners in various cases which is nothing but arm-twisting tactics to bring the petitioners to her fold to act as her dictates. e. There are no ingredients to attract the provisions of Domestic Violence Act as the allegations are bald, far from truth and no specific overt act is attributed against anyone of the petitioners. If the same continues, it is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law.
Arguments advanced at the Bar
5. Hear