HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7935 & 9060 of 2013 Crl.P.No.7935 of 2013:
Between:
Fahmeeda parveen & another . Petitioners And State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another . Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7935 & 9060 of 2013 COMMON ORDER:
Crl.P.No.9060 of 2013 is filed by 2nd respondent (mother-in-law) and Crl.P.No.7935 of 2013 is filed by respondents 3 and 4, who are sisters-in-law of the complainant, to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.395 of 2012 on the file of the XIV Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State.
3. The brief facts of the case which is sought to be quashed may be stated as follows:
The marriage of the complainant was performed with (R.1 in DVC No.395 of 2012) Md.Abdul Sattar on 13.05.2011 at Purani Haveli Masjid ek kana, Hyderabad. The marriage was consummated. It is mentioned in the complaint that the husband of the complainant and his relatives did not make any demand, but after much persuasion, they received some gift articles that are presented by the parents of the complainant. The complainant stayed with her husband in Hyderabad for some time and thereafter, her husband left for Abu Dhabi on 10.11.2011. According to the complainant, she was taken by her husband to Abu Dhabi on 29.01.2012 and she stayed there till 29.03.2012. It is her version that she was harassed by her husband as well as by the petitioners, who are mother-in-law and sisters-in-law on the ground that the articles brought by her were not of their liking. It is further alleged that the Jahez articles presented by the father of the complainant were taken away by her husband and her in-laws and they refused to give them back to the complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioners were abusing her and were passing surcasting remarks on the Jahez articles given by the father of the complainant. A girl child was also born to the complainant and subsequently, she was not taken to Abu Dhabi by her husband and she was abused by the husband and in-laws for delivering a female child. It is further alleged that the petitioners were threatening her that they would see that her husband would divorce her. The complainant prayed for the reliefs of returning jahez articles, maintenance for herself and for her child and also for alternative accommodation and for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for causing her physical, economical, mental and emotional abuse, under Sections 20(2)(3) and 22 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘Act 43 of 2005’).
4. No doubt, certain allegations are made against the petitioners, who are mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant. It seems that while she was staying at Hyderabad, the petitioners in both the cases, used to harass her by passing surcasting remarks on jahez articles brought by her and by instigating the husband of the complainant to harass her. The 2nd and 4th respondents are residing in Hyderabad and the 3rd respondent is residing in Nagapur. Respondents 3 and 4 are the sisters of the complainant’s husband, who married and they have been separately living with their husbands and other family members. It is alleged in the complaint that most of the time they have been staying in the matrimonial home of the complainant and harassing her.
5. From the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, they do not appear to be specific allegations but they are general in nature. Merely because there are some allegations against the petitioners attracting the definition of domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act 43 of 2005, this court while dealing with an application to quash proceedings instituted under the Act 43 of 2005 has a duty to subject the allegations to thorough scrutiny. The reason being Act 43 of 2005 is also one of the provisions, which is often being misused by the parties.
[1]
6. In ‘Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand ’, the Supreme Court held that ‘genuine cases of dowry harassment is a matter of serious concern, but exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection, especially against the husband’s relations, who were living in different States and never visited the matrimonial home of the complainant’.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent- complainant would submit that the said judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court while dealing with the complaint under Section 498-A IPC and it cannot be applied to the present case, which is filed under the provisions of Act 43 of 2005. It is true that the domestic violence defined under the Act 43 of 2005 is much wider than the cruelty defined under Section 498-A IPC. But the argument of the learned counsel that the judgment in Preeti Gupta’s case (referred supra) has no application to a domestic violence case cannot be accepted. Though the judgment in Preeti Gupta’s case (referred supra) was with reference to a complaint under Section 498-A IPC, the judgment applies to any matrimonial case or matrimonial dispute. The Supreme Court had dealt with the issue of false implications of husband’s relatives in the matrimonial matters. Therefore, the said decision equally applies to the cases under the Act of 43 of 2005 also.
8. As per the above judgment, this Court under a duty to scrutinize the allegations levelled in a complaint with care and circumspection. It is very easy to make allegations of domestic violence against the relatives of the husband. In the instant case, almost all the close relatives of the husband were made respondents. Unless this Court scrutinizes the allegations and tries to arrive at a decision whether those allegations are made only for the purpose of involving the relatives of the husband in a domestic violence case, there would not be proper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, it obviously appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that the main allegations are made against the husband of the complainant only, but certain general allegations are made against the petitioners for the purpose of making them respondents in a domestic violence case. On the basis of such general allegations in the complaint, if the petitioners are made to face an enquiry in the domestic violence case, it is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the proceedings in D.V.C.No.395 of 2012 on the file of the XIV Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, against the petitioners in both the cases i.e., respondents 2 to 4, are hereby quashed.
Both the Criminal Petitions are accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO, J Date: 16.04.2014 BSS HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 88 CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7935 & 9060 of 2013 Date: 16.04.2014 BSS
[1] (2010) 7 SCC 667