THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.15805 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1592 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short D.P. Act).

2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Jagan Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.2-de facto complainant, is the father of the victim/LW-6 namely Nagapuri @ Bommaraju Swetha, who is the wife of the petitioner-accused No.1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of petitioner was performed with victim on 04.12.2016. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given to the petitioner. After marriage, the couple resided at the house of de facto complainant for a week, during which the petitioner allegedly quarreled with the victim, expressing dissatisfaction over the dowry and demanded additional amounts. The de facto complainant pacified the matter and sent the victim to her matrimonial home, where they lived amicably for about two months. Subsequently, the victim moved to Australia for her higher studies and the petitioner to went to Pune for his job. The de facto complainant has given amounts to the petitioner for his visa. Later, the petitioner joined the victim in Australia, where he allegedly subjected her to physical and verbal abuse, accusing her of infidelity, and also demanded additional dowry. Upon being informed by the victim, the de facto complainant approached the petitioner’s parents. Instead of admonishing the petitioner, the parents of the petitioner allegedly supported the demands of the petitioner and abused the de facto complainant. While so, the victim was blessed with a son. After the birth of their son, on the fifth day of delivery, the petitioner, instigated by his family, abused and assaulted the victim, reiterating his dowry demands, and thereafter left her and the child in Australia and returned to India. A panchayat was held in the presence of elders, during which the accused persons allegedly abused the de facto complainant and others in filthy language. When requested to sign on the documents for the child's visa, the petitioner refused to do so, unless the demand of additional dowry was fulfilled. Subsequently, the petitioner and other accused in the crime sent a divorce notice to the victim, stating it would be withdrawn only upon receipt of additional dowry. As the victim remained in Australia, her father, the de facto complainant, has lodged the present complaint against the petitioner and others, for the said acts of cruelty, harassment, and illegal dowry demands.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. The petitioner has always acted responsibly towards his wife and child. He never harassed the victim either physically or mentally, nor did he ever demand any additional dowry from her or her family. The further allegation that the petitioner abandoned the victim and their minor son in Australia is denied. In fact, during the period of demonetization, when there was an acute shortage of cash, amounts were transferred by the petitioner to the account of the de facto complainant. These amounts were subsequently returned by the de facto complainant to the petitioner’s account. Taking undue advantage of the said transaction, the de facto complainant has foisted the present complaint against the petitioner with all false allegations only to harass and blackmail him.

4.2. From the very beginning of the marriage, the victim acted indifferently towards the family