THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8976 of 2023

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3711 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Dokka Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Arava Sri Latha, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2–de facto complainant and their marriage was solemnized on 04.05.1992 and that the petitioner-accused No.1 is working as a Police Constable at Kalwakurthy Police Station, and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two children. It is further alleged that about eight months prior to the filing of the complaint, the respondent No.2 came to know that the petitioner-accused No.1 had contacted a second marriage with the help of his parents without obtaining a divorce from her. It is also alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1 and his family members have been harassing her both physically and mentally, and have failed to provide basic necessities to her. Hence, the present complaint was filed for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner- accused No.1 is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case by the respondent No.2, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between the respondent No.2 and petitioner- accused No.1. It is contended that the 2^nd respondent refused to stay with the petitioner-accused No.1 at Kalwakurthy and staying at Hyderabad. It is further contended that the petitioner-accused No.1 never contacted another marriage as is evident from the charge sheet filed by the Police, where the offence under Section 494 of IPC is deleted, since no substantial evidence is established against the petitioner-accused No.1. It is further contended that even as per the complaint, there is no allegation of any harassment, as such, the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC does not attract. It is further contended that the petitioner-accused No.1 is paying an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards monthly maintenance to the respondent No.2. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 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. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

The following categories of cases can be stated by