THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15696 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8 in C.C.No.810 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that on 25.07.2022, respondent No.2/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police at Munagala Village, Suryapet District, stating that her marriage with accused No.1 took place on 13.10.2018. At the time of marriage, her parents allegedly gave one acre of land, Rs.50,000 in cash, and 12 thulas of gold to Accused No.1. After marriage, she joined her husband in Hyderabad. It is alleged that accused No.1 neglected and harassed her physically and mentally. While residing together in Hyderabad, she conceived and gave birth to a baby boy, who is now about 4 years old. Respondent No.2 further alleged that her husband and other accused demanded additional dowry, physically assaulted her, and refused to allow her to stay with them unless she fulfilled their demands.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.132 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.810 of 2022, before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8 to quash the proceedings against them.

4. Heard Sri Dogiparthi Srikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners was wrongly implicated in the said case and the allegations leveled against them, prima facie, do not constitute any offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that the petitioners never interfered in the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Police filed the charge sheet without verifying the matter and there are no specific allegations against the petitioners except stating that they supported accused No.1. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint itself shows that there are allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioners require trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the allegations leveled against them are that they harassed respondent No.2 and demanded additional dowry. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are not residing with accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and further contended that except supporting accused No.1, they never interfered with the matrimonial disputes between them.

8. At this stage, it is imperative to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another¹, wherein in paragraph No.35, it is held as under:

“35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, j.), the legal principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the Cr.P.C was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the