HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.12367 of 2013 Date: 04-6-2014 Between Smt. Miriyala Geeta Devi and another … Petitioners/ Accused 2 and 3 and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent T.Vanita … Respondent/
De facto Complainant HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.12367 of 2013 Order:
The petitioners seek for quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.534 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.
The petitioners are accused 2 and 3 therein.
They allegedly committed matrimonial offences and were charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 498-A, IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused 2 and 3 contended that no case is made out against the petitioners and that as prima facie case also is not made out, case against the petitioners deserves to be quashed.
3. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/
de facto complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the allegations prima facie constituted the offences and that the petitioners cannot seek for quashment of the case against them.
4. The 1st accused is the husband of the 2nd respondent. Petitioners 1 and 2 are accused 2 and 3; they are the mother and the father of accused No.1.
The 2nd respondent hails from Mahabubnagar District while accused No.1 is a native of Saroornagar, Hyderabad. The marriage of the 2nd respondent was solemnized on 12-3-2009 with the 1st accused.
It is alleged by the 2nd respondent that at the time of the marriage, cash of Rs.10 lakhs, 10 tolas of gold, 3 kgs of silver and household articles worth Rs.50,000/- were given to accused No.1 as dowry, apart from presenting gold ornaments to her.
5. The 2nd respondent allegedly went to the house of her parents-in-law after her marriage and stayed there till 20-3-2009. She then went to the United States of America (USA) along with her husband/accused No.1 who was working as a Software Engineer.
The 2nd respondent contended that accused No.1 started harassing her for additional dowry and for the income earned by her as an Assistant Professor prior to her marriage. She further alleged that her parents-in-law used to ring accused No.1 in the USA and used to instigate accused No.1 to harass her. On 25-11-2009, the 2nd respondent was sent alone to India by accused No.1. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that accused No.1 subsequently went to the house of the 2nd respondent, demanded additional dowry and went away from the house of the 2nd respondent in a rage as his demand was not met. Subsequently the 2nd respondent lodged complaint. This is the gist of the case of the prosecution.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that assuming that the whole case of the prosecution is true, there are no concrete allegations against the petitioners herein. Indeed, the 2nd respondent stated that her parents-in-law who are petitioners 1 and 2 herein used to ring the 1st accused and used to instigate him to demand for additional dowry and to harass the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such an allegation on the part of the 2nd respondent is bald, wild and without any specific instance. He has also taken me through the statements of the 2nd respondent and her parents recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In all these statements, there are no specific overt acts against the petitioners herein.
The 2nd respondent claimed that the petitioners used to instigate her husband. She did not even state that she heard the petitioners instigating accused No.1.
The parents of the 2nd respondent merely state that they came to know about the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the offence through the representations of the 2nd respondent. Thus, barring for the evidence of the 2nd respondent, there is no direct evidence about the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the offence.
7. The simple question is whether the evidence of the 2nd respondent would be sufficient to convict the petitioners assuming that the statement is undisputed.
I am afraid that a bald statement that the parents-in-law of the 2nd respondent (the petitioners herein) were instigating accused No.1 is not sufficient to constitute prima facie offence against the petitioners. There must be something more than a passing statement.
The 2nd respondent vividly described the conduct of the 1st accused towards her. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the statement of the 2nd respondent however is merely that they used to telephonically instigate the 1st accused. I am afraid that such a statement on the part of the 2nd respondent could not be sufficient to convict the petitioners.
8. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses deserve to be tested at the time of trial and that till trial, the petitioners cannot question the same. As already pointed out by me, assuming that the statements of the 2nd respondent and her parents are true, they do not prima facie establish an offence against the petitioners herein. I therefore consider that the prosecution of the petitioners herein would be an abuse of the process of law. The case against the petitioners, who are accused 2 and 3, deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. C.C.No.534 of 2014, so far as the petitioners are concerned is quashed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
04th June, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.12367 of 2013 04th June, 2014. (Ak)