THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1442 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1793 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class (Excise) Magistrate at Karimnagar, registered for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Mr. Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ganta Ramakrishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

Perused the record.

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 are the father, mother and brother of accused No.1 respectively. The petitioner-accused No.4 is the wife of the petitioner-accused No.5. As per the complaint, it is alleged that on the demand of accused No.1 and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, the parents of de facto complainant have given dowry at the time of marriage. After the marriage, on the instigation of the petitioners herein, accused No.1 harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry. The petitioner-accused No.4 also harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry and abused her in filthy language. When the de facto complainant gave birth to a female child and informed the accused of the same, the accused failed to visit her. After her delivery, when she returned to matrimonial home, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 altogether harassed her for additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-, kicked on her stomach and necked her out of the matrimonial home.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between de facto complainant and accused No.1. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing separately from the family of accused No.1 and the de facto complainant. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant in 2019, whereas, her marriage with accused No.1 was performed in 2011. The reason for such delay remained unexplained. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-de facto complainant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor in one tone contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted hereunder:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

7.