THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.3784 OF 2020

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner – Accused No.6 to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.604 of 2018, on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-Cum-Special Excise Judge, Sangareddy, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’) and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P.Act).

2. The case of the de facto complainant is that she married accused No.1 on 27.11.2015. Though, initially accused No.1 and his parents did not demand any dowry, subsequently they started demanding dowry on the pretext of customs. On 23.12.2015, de facto complainant went to U.S.A and joined accused No.1. The consummation of marriage did not take place in India and also at U.S.A.

3. During her stay in the U.S.A, accused No.1 harassed her and when the harassment continued, on 09.06.2016 the brother of the respondent No.2 - de facto complainant brought her back to India. Accused No.1 filed divorce application in the State of U.S.A making allegations of cruelty against the respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Having come down to India a criminal complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 - de facto complainant.

4. On the basis of the said complaint a criminal case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that admittedly the petitioner is the resident of U.S.A. The petitioner-accused No.6 never stayed with accused No.1 and respondent No.2 - de facto complainant together as stated in the written complaint and the statement before the police that the petitioner instigated accused No.1 is false and that the petitioner-accused No.6 never involved in any kind of cruelty.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the complaint reflects that accused No.1 was harassing the de facto complainant at the instigation of the petitioner and others.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was staying in U.S.A. At no point of time, the petitioner did not stay along with accused No.1 and respondent No.2-de facto complainant. All the allegations made are regarding the alleged acts of cruelty meted out by accused No.1. Against the petitioner only a bald allegation is made that she is also responsible for the harassment meted out by accused No.1.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar, [(2022) 6 SCC 599], held that unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against the relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, [(2010) 7 SCC 667] held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband’s relatives who were living in different cities and rarely visited or stayed with the couple.

10. Following the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said judgments, when the allegation against the petitioner is bald and vague, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.6 in C.C.No.604 of 2018 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-Cum-Special Excise Judge, Sangareddy are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________

K.SURENDER, J Date:10.11.2023 dsv