THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8440 of 2021

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.830 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sathupalli, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as sole accused, for the offences under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for brevity) and Sections 3 and

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (‘DP’ Act for brevity).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08.07.2021 at 13.00 hours police received a complaint from de-facto complainant with contents that at the time of her marriage, the de-facto complainant’s parents gave dowry of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and after the marriage, they led a peaceful marital life and were blessed with a female child. Further, the de-facto complainant alleged that the accused harassed her both mentally and physically for additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and hence, she left the house of the accused. It is further alleged that on 08.06.2021, at about 10.00 A.M., the accused attended panchayat held at Rejeral Village, in the presence of elders, however, he bluntly refused to take her back for marital life without receiving Rs.2.00 Lakhs towards additional dowry.

Hence, she requested to take necessary action against the accused. Accordingly, the police have registered a case against the accused.

3. Heard Sri K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ch.Venkatanarayana, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the accused demanded additional dowry on 08.06.2021, whereas respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 08.07.2021, after lapse of long period, without giving any reasons for the said delay. He further submitted that investigating officers, without properly conducting investigation filed charge sheet solely basing on the statements of LWs 1 to 4, especially LW2, who is the mother of LW1 and LW 3 are interested witnesses. Even LW4 has not stated that the petitioner has demanded the additional dowry. He further submitted that respondent No.2 voluntarily left the matrimonial house and she is residing with her parents.

Hence, the ingredients under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act do not attract. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is clear abuse of the process of law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 and the petitioner were blessed with girl child and the petitioner demanded an additional dowry of an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs and due to non-payment of same, the petitioner has not permitted respondent No.2 into matrimonial house. On 08.06.2021, Panchayat was conducted in the presence of village elders. He further submitted that LWs 1 to 5 specifically mentioned about demanding additional dowry. After filing of present complaint by respondent No.2, the petitioner filed O.P seeking dissolution of marriage before Family Court and the same is pending. The grounds which are raised in the present criminal petition have to be adjudicated during the course of trial and the criminal petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also reiterated the very same submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the marriage of respondent No.2 was performed with the petitioner on 02.05.2019. During the wedlock, respondent No.2 blessed with a girl child. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 08.07.2021, wherein she specifically stated that at the time of her marriage, her parents have given an amount of