THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.10599 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2173 of 2022 on the file of the learned XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar (for short ‘trial Court’), arising out of Crime No.1155 of 2022 of P.S. Rajendranagar, registered for the offences 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. Kapish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sharad Kumar Bisawa, 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 petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father and mother of accused No.1. According to the complaint, the allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 is that they have demanded the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. When the de facto complainant expressed her parent’s inability, the petitioners did not provide her food and medicines.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners 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 the de facto complainant and accused No.1. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant in 2022, whereas, her marriage with accused No.1 was performed in 2017. The reason for such delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. It is further contended that accused No.1 has got issued a divorce notice to the de facto complainant. Since she failed to reply to the said notice, accused No.1 filed a divorce petition before the Family Court at Akola, Maharashtra vide H.M.O.P.No.50 of 2022 and the same is pending for adjudication. As a counterblast to the said divorce petition, the de facto complainant has lodged the present complaint against the accused and she has also filed domestic violence case against accused No.1 and the petitioners herein. It is also contended that there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses. 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 Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant in one voice 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. In the ju