HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4561 OF 2012 Dated 12-9-2014 Between:
Syed Abdul Kareem and others.
..Petitioners.
And:
Reshma Tabassum and another.
..Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4561 OF 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash F.I.R. in Crime No.448 of 2011 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad for alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Heard advocate for petitioners.
Advocate for petitioners submitted that petitioners are A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.5 and they are no way concerned with the matrimonial dispute between de facto complainant and A.1. He further submitted that A.3 who is the sister of A.1 and daughter of A.2 married long prior to marriage of A.1 and she is residing separately with her in-laws.
He further submitted that there is no prima facie material attracting any of the offences against the petitioners and that except making omnibus allegations in the complaint, there is no material against the petitioners. He further submitted that there are no allegations of dowry harassment in the complaint and therefore, F.I.R. against petitioners is to be quashed.
On the other hand, advocate for first respondent submitted that complaint is not given only for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. but also for breach of trust and Dowry Prohibition Act and that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, particularly, in respect of breach of trust and those allegations cannot be decided in a quash petition, that too, at F.I.R. stage and they require investigation.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this Criminal Petition is whether the proceedings in F.I.R.No.448 of 2011 are liable to be quashed or not?.
POINT:
I have perused material papers filed along with quash petition.
No doubt, the allegations of harassment attracting offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. are primarily against A.1., i.e., husband but there is allegation of dowry demand against second petitioner and also petitioners alleged to have not allowed the complainant to stay in the marital home and she was driven out. It is also alleged in the complaint that the jewellary articles i.e., gold ornaments etc., were in the custody of all the accused persons and they did not allow her to use them. The other allegations against the petitioners is that they also threatened her with dire consequences.
As rightly pointed out by the advocate for first respondent, these allegations require investigation and the correctness of these allegations cannot be decided in a quash petition.
Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when even if the entire allegations in the complaint are accepted in toto, if no offence is made out, then only such a complaint has to be quashed. But, here, there are some allegations against the petitioners also. The truth or otherwise of the allegations is a matter of investigation. However, since they are relatives of the husband, police have to follow the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court given in the case ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1277 of 2014 dated 2-7-2014) strictly and they have to apply them.
So, considering the allegations in the complaint and submissions of both sides, I feel that there are no grounds to quash the F.I.R. However, the petition can be disposed of with a direction to the police to follow the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court given in the above referred case.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with above observation.
As a sequel to the disposal of this Criminal petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 12-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL PETITION No.4561 OF 2012 Dated 12-9-2014