SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 2894

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5976 of 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 5 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2832 of 2018 on the file of learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal the cognizance of which was taken for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record are as hereunder:

a) On 13.0632018 at 20:00 hours the respondent No. 2 – de-facto complainant has lodged a complaint alleging that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 02.12.2012 at her parents’ house at CSR Gardens, Warangal and at the time of marriage, on the demand of accused, her parents paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash, 50 tulas gold and 1 Kg silver and other household articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- to her husband and his family members towards dowry. It is further alleged that when her son was born, her parents presented 10 tulas gold and deposited an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in bank under FDR, and the entire Gold is in the custody of her mother-in-law i.e., petitioner No.1. After the marriage, the de-facto complainant joined the conjugal society of accused No.1 at Krishna Nagar, Jagtial about one month and during the said period, the accused have harassed her in innumerable ways, tortured her physically and mentally and demanded her to bring additional dowry from her parents. On 24.01.2013 the de-facto complainant went to USA and stayed with her husband and in the month of April, 2013 she became pregnant, but her husband forced her to get abortion under the influence of his mother, threatened her not to talk with anyone, by asserting that she shall lead only isolated life and to his dictation she get aborted, in the month of May, 2013. When the de-facto complainant asked her husband that she would like to continue her further studies, he refused and warned her saying that if she will continued her study he will give divorce to her. Since then accused No.1 started mental and physical harassment, made her mentally down, insulting her and her family members and he used to treat her like a servant and tortured her in innumerable ways and belittled her in all walks.

b) In the month of October, 2013 to the dictation of her husband, the de-facto complainant came to India in order to attend the marriage of Praneeth i.e., the brother of her husband. During the said period the mother-in-law of the de-facto complainant started harassing her, called her husband on phone and told completely against her and since then, her husband started harassing her on phone by abusing her and her family members in most heinous and filthy language. Again, they both left to USA in 2014 and thereafter she conceived again but her husband i.e., accused No.1 used to beat her and shouted at her. During her pregnancy, accused No.1 even used to go out leaving her alone in the house days together. When the de-facto complainant was pregnant, her mother-in-law came to USA and since then both accused Nos.1 and 2 tortured and even did not keep food for her. During the pregnancy of de-facto complainant, her mother-in-law has major impact and instrumental on her husband’s behaviour with her. When the mother of the de-facto complainant came to USA, her husband and his mother i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 insulted her and harassed her in innumerable ways and even did not offered food to her mother asking her get out of the house.

c) The de-facto complainant came to India in 2016 for first birthday of her son at Uma Shankar Gardens at Jagityal and in the birthday party, her husband insulted her relatives and her family members, demanded for additional dowry and her in-laws by saying that if they married another girl to his son (accused No.1), they would have got above RS.1,00,00,000/- towards dowry and her husband’s brother (accused No.4) used to say that the son of the de-facto complainant is not going to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top