THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11788 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.6417 of 2019 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri Shaik Mahammad Hussen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2-de facto complainant got married in the year 2011 and that subsequently, the present complaint has been lodged just to harass the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the de facto complainant has not taken any steps to revoke the divorce pronounced on 04.05.2017, but she has come up with the present complaint. He further submitted that the petitioner and de facto complainant are blessed with two children and that the de facto complainant travelled twice to India and back to Saudi Arabia. He further submitted that the petitioner has already paid Rs.9,40,000/- and still the de facto complainant is bent upon to harass the petitioner to extract money from him. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner herein.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the divorce pronounced is a unilateral divorce and that the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is a continuous offence and the de facto complainant has been put to harassment ever since the commencement of marital life with the petitioner. He further submitted that the allegations make out prima facie offence under Section 498A I.P.C. against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5473, wherein it was held that proceedings under Section 498A I.P.C. should not been quashed based on the prima facie material. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner has already divorced the de facto complainant and that subsequently, the present complaint is filed by the de facto complainant without seeking any recourse to revoke the divorce. A perusal of the record reveals that the divorce was pronounced over phone through WhatsApp. While, the counsel for respondent No.2 contends that it is a unilateral divorce and has no sanctity at all. Admittedly, both the parties are residing separately due to the aggravated disputes between them. The prima facie allegations point out the harassment for additional dowry. It is alleged that the petitioner used to demand additional dowry and even while in abroad, he used to harass the de facto complainant physically and mentally and her in-laws used to instigate the petitioner through phone calls. Thus, the prima facie allegations point out the harassment meted out by the de facto complainant in the hands of the petitioner. The truth or otherwise in the allegations shall be culled out after a full-fledged trial.

7. In Aluri Venkata Ramana’s case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.2, it is held that the absence of an explicit dowry demand does not negate the applicability of the provision where acts of physical violence and mental distress have been demonstrated. The core of the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely revolve around the demand for dowry. Therefore, the High Court erred in quashing all criminal proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the trial ought to have been allowed to be carried out. Thus, the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was set aside and the proceedings were reinstated against the respondents therei