THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12958 OF 2023

ORDER:

This criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 606 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhadrachalam, against the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 8, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, “DP Act”).

2. Heard Sri A.Dheeraj, learned counsel representing Sri Mohd Subhan Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1; and Sri Sambhashiva Rao, learned counsel representing Ms.Sureddy Priyanka, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that 17.09.2022 at about 11:00 hours, the complainant, submitted a written complaint alleging that her marriage with accused No.1 was performed on 22.05.2021 as per Hindu customs. She stated that her parents had given Rs. 20 lakhs as dowry and gold ornaments at the time of marriage. After the marriage, accused No.1 and accused Nos. 2 to 8 allegedly demanded additional dowry, harassed her both mentally and physically, and even attempted to kill her by leaking gas in a room. They allegedly abused her and demanded an additional amount of Rs. 25 lakhs.

Basing on the same, the present complaint has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage between accused No. 1/petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 22.05.2021. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. In the presence of elders, accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2 entered into a settlement by way of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 30.12.2021, wherein they specifically mentioned that it is not possible for them to live together, and both parties desired to live separately and agreed to obtain a mutual consent decree of divorce from the competent Court. Pursuant to the said settlement, the family of accused No. 1 agreed to pay a total amount of Rs. 14 lakhs towards permanent alimony and paid an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs at the time of execution of the MoU, while the remaining Rs. 10 lakhs were deposited in the accounts of elders representing both accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2. When accused No. 1 approached respondent No. 2 to give her consent for filing a mutual divorce, respondent No. 2 refused for the same and, on the other hand, demanded an additional amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. At that stage, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against accused No. 1 and his family on 17.09.2022. Basing on the same, Crime No. 190 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused No. 1 also lodged a complaint against respondent No. 2 and her family on 20.10.2023. Basing on the same, Crime No. 254 of 2023 was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 384, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2 lived together only for a short period of 20 days after their marriage, and neither accused No. 1 nor accused Nos. 2 to 8 demanded any additional dowry as alleged in the complaint. Respondent No. 2 lodged the complaint contrary to the MoU dated 30.12.2021. Respondent No. 2 made false allegations against petitioner Nos. 2 to 8, who are the family members of accused No. 1, by making omnibus allegations against them. The ingredients of Section 498-A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not attracted against accused No. 1 or accused Nos. 2 to 8. The Investigating Officer, without properly conducting the investigation, filed the final report by merely extracting the very same allegations levelled in the complaint. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners amounts to clear abuse of the process of law