HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.8588 of 2013
Date: 11.07.2014 Between:
Valadasu Laxmi, w/o. Ashirvadam and 4 others. .. Petitioners/ A.2 to A.5 AND Valadasu Sravanthi, w/o. V. Raj Kumar and another. .. Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.8588 of 2013
ORDER:
The petitioners are A.2 to A.5 in C.C.No.472 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. A charge sheet was laid against them and another (A.1) under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners seek for the quashment of the charge sheet as against them on the ground that no case is made out against them.
2. The second respondent is the de facto complainant. She filed a complaint against A.2 to A.5.
A.1 is the husband of the first respondent. Petitioners 1 & 2, who are A.2 & A.3, are the mother and father of A.1. Petitioner No.3 & 4, who are A.4 & A5, are the sister and brother of A.1. The first respondent lodged a complaint that she was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and that she was forced to succumb to the pressure of the accused for dowry.
3. The first respondent contended that A.1 suspected the fidelity of the first respondent and started harassing the first respondent for additional dowry.
The first respondent also contended that A.2 to A.5 joined hands with A.1 in demanding the first respondent for additional dowry. The demand persisted after the first respondent gave birth to a male child.
4. On these allegations, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no case can be made out against the petitioners either from the complaint or from the charge sheet. Barring for the making an assertion that the petitioners joined A.1 in demanding for additional dowry, no other overt act was attributed against any of the petitioners. The first respondent did not state the date/dates on which the demand occurred nor did she state the place or the circumstances in which the demand was made. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that assuming that there is no contrary evidence, the statement of the first respondent per se cannot lead to the conviction of any of the petitioners for the offences levelled against them.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the details of the incident and incident would come out at the time of the trial of the case and that it is a fit case to direct the petitioners to face trial. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complaint as well as the charge sheet are bare and devoid of details of the cruelty on the part of the petitioners and the demand for dowry. I am satisfied that even in the absence of contradictory evidence, the statement of the first respondent would not be sufficient to bring home conviction against the petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, I consider that it is a fit case where charge sheet is liable to be quashed against the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C.No.472 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal is quashed so far as the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 are concerned. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.
Date: 11.07.2014 Isn