THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.15217 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1033 of 2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanamkonda.

2. Heard Mr. Banda Prasada Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. Perused the material on record. Notice served on respondent No.2, no representation.

3. On the basis of a complaint dated 10.07.2023, an FIR bearing No.196 of 2023 came to be registered in the Women Police Station, Warnagal, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 420 of IPC an Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’).

4. It is the case of complainant/respondent No.2 that she was married to accused No.1, on 09.12.2022, at the time of marriage Rs.18,00,000/- cash, 15 tulas of gold and household articles were given as dowry with marriage expenses of Rs.35,00,000/-. It is further averred that she was physically and mentally harassed for additional dowry, to register the plot on her father-in-law’s name, she was threatened with dire consequences if she disclose(s) to her parents. It is averred that on 01.02.2023, both complainant and her husband went to Sweden and in Sweden her husband forcibly dragged her Mangalasutra, beat her with hands and sent back to India. That after coming to India again demanded for additional dowry. Hence the complaint.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 that marriage took place on 09.12.2022 and accused Nos.4 and 5 being family members, attended the marriage. It is further submitted that on 01.02.2023, respondent No.2 along with accused No.1 (husband) left to Sweden and accused Nos.4 and 5 left to USA on 16.02.2023. It is also submitted that neither the complaint nor charge sheet, discloses any overt acts of physical and mental harassment. It is pointed out that accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing in Missouri, a state in USA.

6. It is submitted that names of petitioners have been added with an intent to implicate falsely, with baseless allegations, only to harass them. It is fairly submitted by learned counsel that accused Nos.4 and 5 have attended the marriage and were present in Warangal and left to USA on 16.02.2023, that the allegation of harassing physically and mentally does not arise as they were in USA and that harassment as stated in complaint, if at all, was at Sweden. It is submitted that a bald allegation that petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 threatened her on whatsapp call do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC. That it is reflected in the charge sheet that accused Nos.4 and 5 are residing abroad. It is pointed out that when there is an allegation that there was a dispute/quarrel between wife and husband in Sweden and that complainant returned in the month of May to India during which accused Nos.4 and 5 were in USA is evidence enough to negate/negative the charges levelled. The fact that complaint lodged is in the month of July, 2023 establishes that it is a false and baseless complaint, that there is no truth in the allegations made.

7. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and another1, Umesh Kumar IPS v. State of

1 (2007) 12 SCC

Andhra Pradesh2, G.Linga Reddy v. M.Dharma Raju and another, 2011(1) ALD(Crl)892 (AP), Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Telangana, 2024(3) ALD(Crl.) 350 (TS) Manilal Keshri and others v. State of Bihar and another5 Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 6 SCC 758, Rajesh Gutta v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another7 and Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and another, (2009) 14 SCC 466, and contended that the Apex Court has time and again held that in cases