THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8857 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3781 of 2021 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. K.Mounika, learned counsel representing Mr. K.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of the 2^nd respondent- de facto complainant. The gist of the complaint is that the de facto complainant was married to the petitioner on 21.08.2021. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. They lived happily for 4 or 5 days. As the de facto complainant was found to have excess fat near the spinal cord, the petitioner and his parents, suspecting that she was suffering from some ailment, sent her to her parental home and informed her parents to send her back only after she had undergone appropriate medical treatment. Despite consulting multiple doctors, no ailment came into light. When the de facto complainant’s parents informed the same to the petitioner and his parents, they demanded for divorce or to buy a sports car. Though a panchayat was held in the presence of elders, the accused insisted for divorce, claiming that the de facto complainant was suffering from some ailment.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between them and to extract money. The de facto complainant was married to the petitioner by suppressing the fact that she is suffering with Scoliosis. When the petitioner came to know about the same, he advised her to undergo proper medical treatment, for which, she left to her parental home at Warangal and started demanding Rs.50,00,000/-. The petitioner never took any dowry from the de facto complainant’s parents at the time of marriage, nor did he demand a sports car. In fact, the marriage expenses were shared by both the families on mutual understanding. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in one voice contended that the petitioner has harassed the de facto complainant alleging that she is suffering with some ailment and demanded her parents to buy a sports car for him. Unable to bear such harassment, the present complaint has been lodged by the de facto complainant. 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