HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.12502 of 2013 Date: 04-6-2014 Between M.Raghavender and another … Petitioners/ Accused 4 and 5 and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent T.Vanitha … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.12502 of 2013 Order:
The petitioners are accused 4 and 5 in Crime No.63 of 2012 on the file of Women Police Station, Mahabubnagar. They seek for the quashment of the First Information Report (FIR) so far as the petitioners are concerned. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.
2. The case is:
(a) The 2nd respondent was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 12-3-2009. Substantial dowry was given to accused No.1 at the time of the marriage. About a week after the marriage, the 2nd respondent went away to the United Stated of America (USA) along with her husband/accused No.1 on 20-3-2009. The 1st accused was working as a Software personnel.
(b) Accused 4 and 5, who are the petitioners herein, instigated accused No.1 to demand the 2nd respondent for additional dowry. Accused No.1 sent away the 2nd respondent to India against her wish on 25-11-2009. In 2011, accused No.1 went to the house of the 2nd respondent and made additional demands for dowry. The allegations were registered as FIR under Section 498-A, IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no complicity in the commission of the offence. The petition does not reveal the relationship of accused 4 and 5 to accused No.1. From the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, it could be gathered that the 1st petitioner is the brother of accused No.1 and the 2nd petitioner is the sister of accused No.1. Thus, it is the allegation of the 2nd respondent that her in-
laws including her brother-in-law and sister-in-law harassed her for additional dowry and treated her cruelly.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners barring for the bald statement that the petitioners instigated accused No.1 to demand the 2nd respondent for additional dowry. The 1st petitioner is said to be a resident of USA while the 2nd petitioner is said to be a resident of Switzerland along with her husband.
The contention of the petitioners is that they have nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute between the 2nd respondent and the 1st accused.
5. The 2nd respondent did not allege in the complaint that at the time of the marriage, the petitioners played a role relating to the demand for dowry.
The contention of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioners instigated the 1st accused to demand the 2nd respondent for additional dowry. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was not even stated as to how the petitioners instigated their brother/accused No.1. The 2nd respondent did not state whether the petitioners used to converse with accused No.1 telephonically or used to go to accused No.1 and instigate him. Further, there is absolutely no corroboration for the allegation of the 2nd respondent regarding the complicity of petitioners 1 and 2/accused 4 and 5 in the commission of the offence. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even in the absence of contrary evidence, the claim of the 2nd respondent is not sufficient to bring home conviction against the petitioners.
6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the allegations of the 2nd respondent deserve to be tested before the Trial Court. When the evidence narrated by the 2nd respondent prima facie is not satisfactory, I am afraid that there is no need for the petitioners to face trial and to establish their innocence. As already pointed out, the case of the de facto complainant/2nd respondent that the petitioners instigated accused No.1 to demand the 2nd respondent for additional dowry cannot be accepted where the allegation is simply sweeping without any particulars whatsoever.
I therefore agree that the de facto complaint failed to prima
facie establish the case against the petitioners. The FIR insofar as the petitioners are concerned consequently deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and Crime No.63 of 2012 on the file of Women Police Station, Mahabubnagar so far as the present petitioners are concerned is quashed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
04th June, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.12502 of 2013 04th June, 2014. (Ak)