THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.736 of 2023

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in S.C No.671 of 2021 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-ASJ, Medchal for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the 2^nd respondent is that A1, who is the brother of this petitioner, was married to the defacto complainant on 06.08.2008. At the time of marriage, A1 and his family members demanded for dowry of Rs.75.00 lakhs, 2 ½ kgs gold jewellery, 10 kgs of silver, Acs.6.00 of land at Gowraram, one house in Karimnagar, one SUV car and costly furniture worth Rs.5.00 lakhs. This petitioner, who is the sister of A1 allegedly demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs towards ‘Adapadachu katnam’. When the parents tried to negotiate, she tried to break the alliance with the support of her parents, for which reason, the said amount was given to her. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent joined A1 and A2. She gave birth to a daughter and son. However, A1 to A3 started harassing her showing discontentment over dowry.

3. The main allegation against the petitioner is that she was calling frequently on phone from the US and abetting A1 to be violent towards the complainant and her kids for fulfilling the demand for dowry. Every time, A1 received a call from A3, he went mad and tortured them.

4. Since there was a demand for Rs.75.00 lakhs additional dowry, the father of the 2^nd respondent having no other option, gave Rs.45.00 lakhs to A1 on 13.12.2019 by way of Bank transfer. On 17.12.2019, there was a fight in between A1 and the defacto complainant and A1 tried to kill her. Accordingly, complaint was filed. The police having registered the complaint, filed charge sheet against A1, A2 and this petitioner as A3. The offence alleged against this petitioner is under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is permanent resident of US and is the married sister of A1. She never came to India, as such, the question of physical or verbal abuse does not arise. Except stating that she was calling from the US and as and when calls were received from this petitioner, A1 used to turn violent and abuse the defacto complainant. There is no specific allegation. The said vague allegation cannot form basis to continue criminal prosecution in Sessions Case. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments in the cases of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599]

and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667].

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that during the course of investigation, stay was granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner herein, for which reason, the police could not properly investigate. Several aspects have to be investigated and though the petitioner was not physically present in India, her calls resulted in harassment of the 2^nd respondent through A1. Since A1 was constantly abetted by this petitioner on phone, she has to face trial for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

7. The marriage in between A1 and the 2^nd respondent was on 06.08.2008. The complaint was filed on 23.12.2019. In the complaint, there is a mention about the petitioner demanding ‘Adapadachu katnam’, which is a customary gift given to the sister of the bridegroom. Except the said bald allegation of demand for ‘Adapadachu katnam’, there is no other allegation except stating that she was calling from US on phone and instigating A1. It appears that harassment meted out by A1 on account of the petitioner is an assumption. It is not narrated as to how the 2^nd respondent came to know that calls were received by A1 and what was stated by this petitioner to A1, which resulted i