HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Criminal Petition Nos.1799 and 1805 of 2014
Date: 18-7-2014 Between Nagesh Satyavarapu and 2 others and … Petitioners/ Accused 2 to 4 The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, Through: Women PS, North Zone, Begumpet, Secunderabad … Respondent Priyanka Satyavarapu … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Criminal Petition Nos.1799 and 1805 of 2014
Common Order:
These two criminal petitions are disposed of through this common order. Criminal Petition No.1799 of 2014 was filed by accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Crl.P.No.1805 of 2014 was filed by accused No.4 in the same case. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1799 of 2014, however, withdrew the petition so far as the
1 st petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned. Consequently, accused 2 and 3 through Crl.P.No.1799 of 2014 and accused No.4 through Crl.P.No.1805 of 2014 seek for the quashment of the same.
2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. Her complaint was registered as FIR in Crime No.180 of 2013 by Women Police Station, Begumpet, North Zone, Secunderabad. Subsequently, charge-sheet was filed alleging that accused 1 to 4 committed the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 read with Section 34 IPC as well as under Sections 506 and 420 IPC and also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that absolutely, no allegations are made out against the petitioners, so much so, the complaint deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon:
( a ) U.Maha Lakshmi v. State of Andhra
[1]
Pradesh . A bald and sweeping allegation made against the sisters of the husband that they instigated their brother to demand more dowry and that they joined their brother in driving out the de facto complainant from the matrimonial home was held to be liable to be quashed as sweeping and general.
(b) In Cheeli Asirvadam v. State of Andhra
[2]
Pradesh , the prosecution against the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the de facto complainant were quashed where there were no specific instances of any harassment or overt acts against the accused and the allegations were bald.
(c) In Tummala Ramnarayana v. State of Andhra
[3]
Pradesh , the accused were the husband of the de
facto complainant, parents of such husband and close relatives of such husband. All of them were residents of Visakhapatnam. The accused allegedly went to Rajahmundry and assaulted the wife at the house of her parents after making demands for additional dowry.
The Court held that the allegations obviously seem to be unnatural and improbable.
(d) Relying upon PREETHI GUPTA v. STATE OF
[4]
JHARKHAND , this Court held that continuation of the trial would cause substantial injustice and undue hardship to the petitioners. The case was quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.
(e) In GEETA MEHROTRA v. STATE OF UTTAR
[5]
PRADESH , there was no specific allegation or prima
facie case against the family members of the husband including unmarried sister and elder brother of the husband. The Court quashed the proceedings against
them.
Relying upon these decisions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no case is made out against the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that specific allegations are made against the petitioners. It may be noticed that accused 2 to 4 are the petitioners in the two petitions as the petition filed by accused No.1 was dismissed as not pressed. During the investigation, the 2nd respondent stated that accused 2 to 4 subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and that she was abused in most filthy language on petty issues. It was also alleged by the
2 nd respondent in her statement to Police that accused 1 to 3 cheated her and her parents by falsely claiming that the 1st accused was a B.Com., graduate whereas he was only an under-graduate. The charge-sheet alleged that accused 1 to 3 demanded the 2nd respondent to bring additional dowry from her parents. It was also contended that accused No.3 never treated the 2nd respondent as
a daughter-in-law and that the 2nd respondent was even deprived of proper food. The 2nd respondent stated to Police that she had to go to college on empty stomach on many occasions. She ultimately claimed that accused 2 to 4 instigated accused No.1 whereupon accused No.1 beat the 2nd respondent and necked her out of the house.
5. It may be considered that some of the allegations are certainly bald and sweeping. Some of the allegations did not even state as to when the incidents occurred. But, it is evident that the 2nd respondent contended that she was driven out of the matrimonial home by accused No.1 upon the instigation of accused 2 to 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the date on which the instigation was made has not been mentioned in the complaint. However, that the 2nd respondent was necked out and that accused No.1 subsequently sent a notice seeking divorce have been set out in the complaint. The claim of the 2nd respondent that the petitioners as well as accused No.1 have ill-treated her would appear to be definitely more than mere sweeping statements from the fact that one of the overt acts is correlated to the driving out the 2nd respondent from the matrimonial home.
6. In that view of the matter, I consider that it would be appropriate for the petitioners to face trial where the questions can be examined thread-bare. I therefore decline to pass orders of quashing C.C.No.6 of 2014. However, where accused 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law and accused No.4 is their daughter, I deem it appropriate to grant the relief of not appearing before the Trial Court for every adjournment to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are disposed of directing the Trial Court to proceed with the trial of C.C.No.6 of 2014. The appearance of accused 2 to 4 before the Trial Court for every adjournment is dispensed with. The Trial Court, however, is at liberty to call the presence of the petitioners on any day for the just disposal of the case. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these petitions shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
18th July, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Criminal Petition Nos.1799 and 1805 of 2014 (Common Order)
18th July, 2014. (Ak)
[1] 2012 (2) ALD (Crl.) 542 (AP)
[2] 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 390 (AP)
[3] 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 293 (AP)
[4] (2010) 7 SCC 667
[5] (2012) 10 SCC 741