http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14376&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10207 of 2011
05-10-2017
Thumma Uma Rani and others. Appellant
State, rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. and another. Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam
Counsel for the respondents: Public Prosecution for R.1
Sri E.Venkata Reddy for R.2
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10207 of 2011
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A.2
to A.5 in C.C.No.184 of 2011 on the file of the Court of IV
Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal District, registered for
the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The brief facts of the case are that A.1 is husband, A.2 is
mother-in-law, A.3 is brother-in-law, A.4 and A.5 are sister-in-
laws of respondent No.2 defacto complainant. The marriage
of the 2nd respondent was performed with A.1, who is the eldest
son of petitioner No.1 (A.2) on 14.12.2006 as per Hindu
Customs and Rights at Paradise Function Hall, Subedari,
Hanamkonda. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent and her
husband-A.1 lived happily for sometime in the house of the
petitioners. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of A.1
to A.5, net cash of Rs.2.00 Lakhs, Fixed Deposit amount of
Rs.1,50,000/-, Gold ornaments worth Rs.1.00 Lakh and other
household articles worth Rs.50,000/- were given to A.1
towards dowry in the presence of the marriage elders - LWs.4
and 5. After the marriage the 2nd respondent joined the
company of the accused at FCI Colony, Julaiwada,
Hanamkonda. They led their conjugal life amicably for about 4
months. Thereafter the accused started harassing her mentally
and physically on the ground that she is in black complexion
and brought less amount of dowry and also demanded to bring
additional dowry of Rs.2.00 Lakhs. Later A.1 left respondent
No.2 at her parents house, where she stayed for about 8
months. During that period, LWs.2 and 3, who are mother and
father of respondent No.2, went to the house of the accused
and expressed their inability to provide such a huge amount of
additional dowry. Later on 20.11.2007 the father of A.1 died
and the death intimation was given to respondent No.2 by A.1.
On such intimation, respondent No.2 went to her matrimonial
house. Thereafter, A.1 to A.5 again started harassing her
mentally and physically demanding to bring additional dowry.
On coming to know about the same, LWs.2 and 3 brought her
back to their house and the 2nd respondent stayed at her
parents house for 3 months, but A.1 did not turn up to take
her back. Therefore, on 13.03.2008 the 2nd respondent lodged
a complaint at P.S. Subedari, on which the S.I. of Police
advised to settle the matter through Panchayat and Panchayat
was held before the elders on 30.03.2008, where A.1 to A.5
admitted their guilt and promised that they will not harass the
2nd respondent for additional dowry and took her to
matrimonial house on 17.04.2008. One week thereafter, A.1 to
A.5 again started harassing her mentally and physically on
flimsy issues for additional dowry. Subsequently on
27.08.2008, LWs.2 and 3 went to the house of the accused and
on demand of the accused to provide additional dowry, they
brought back the respondent No.2 to their house. Since then
the 2nd respondent is staying at her parents house and by the
date of lodging the complaint, she was carrying 3
months pregnancy. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd
respondent, a case in Crime No.409/2008 was registered
against A.1 to A.5 for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After
investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.5 for
the said offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners, who
are A.2 to A.5 filed the present Criminal Petition seeking to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.184 of 2011.
3. Heard the arguments of Sri S.A.V. Ratnam, learned
counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 as well as the learned
Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent State and Sri
E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
defacto complainant and perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted that
petitioner Nos.3 and 4, who are A.4 and A.5, respectively, are
married and are living separately and hence they have not
committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel would further submit that there
are no specific allegations against A.2 to A.5 in the charge sheet
and, therefore, the proceedings against them may be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing
for 1st respondent State as well as Sri E. Venkata Reddy,
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent defacto complainant
submits that there are specific allegations against A.2 to A.5 in
the complaint as well as in the charge sheet and hence there
are no grounds to quash the proceedings against them and
that they have to face the trial.
6. On consideration of the material on record and in view of
the fact that there are specific allegations against the
petitioners/A.2 to A.5 in the complaint and also in the charge
sheet, I do not see any valid grounds to quash the proceedings
against them in C.C.No.184 of 2011.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a
sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J
05.10.2017
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10207 of 2011
05-10-2017
Thumma Uma Rani and others. Appellant
State, rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. and another. Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam
Counsel for the respondents: Public Prosecution for R.1
Sri E.Venkata Reddy for R.2
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10207 of 2011
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A.2
to A.5 in C.C.No.184 of 2011 on the file of the Court of IV
Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal District, registered for
the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The brief facts of the case are that A.1 is husband, A.2 is
mother-in-law, A.3 is brother-in-law, A.4 and A.5 are sister-in-
laws of respondent No.2 defacto complainant. The marriage
of the 2nd respondent was performed with A.1, who is the eldest
son of petitioner No.1 (A.2) on 14.12.2006 as per Hindu
Customs and Rights at Paradise Function Hall, Subedari,
Hanamkonda. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent and her
husband-A.1 lived happily for sometime in the house of the
petitioners. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of A.1
to A.5, net cash of Rs.2.00 Lakhs, Fixed Deposit amount of
Rs.1,50,000/-, Gold ornaments worth Rs.1.00 Lakh and other
household articles worth Rs.50,000/- were given to A.1
towards dowry in the presence of the marriage elders - LWs.4
and 5. After the marriage the 2nd respondent joined the
company of the accused at FCI Colony, Julaiwada,
Hanamkonda. They led their conjugal life amicably for about 4
months. Thereafter the accused started harassing her mentally
and physically on the ground that she is in black complexion
and brought less amount of dowry and also demanded to bring
additional dowry of Rs.2.00 Lakhs. Later A.1 left respondent
No.2 at her parents house, where she stayed for about 8
months. During that period, LWs.2 and 3, who are mother and
father of respondent No.2, went to the house of the accused
and expressed their inability to provide such a huge amount of
additional dowry. Later on 20.11.2007 the father of A.1 died
and the death intimation was given to respondent No.2 by A.1.
On such intimation, respondent No.2 went to her matrimonial
house. Thereafter, A.1 to A.5 again started harassing her
mentally and physically demanding to bring additional dowry.
On coming to know about the same, LWs.2 and 3 brought her
back to their house and the 2nd respondent stayed at her
parents house for 3 months, but A.1 did not turn up to take
her back. Therefore, on 13.03.2008 the 2nd respondent lodged
a complaint at P.S. Subedari, on which the S.I. of Police
advised to settle the matter through Panchayat and Panchayat
was held before the elders on 30.03.2008, where A.1 to A.5
admitted their guilt and promised that they will not harass the
2nd respondent for additional dowry and took her to
matrimonial house on 17.04.2008. One week thereafter, A.1 to
A.5 again started harassing her mentally and physically on
flimsy issues for additional dowry. Subsequently on
27.08.2008, LWs.2 and 3 went to the house of the accused and
on demand of the accused to provide additional dowry, they
brought back the respondent No.2 to their house. Since then
the 2nd respondent is staying at her parents house and by the
date of lodging the complaint, she was carrying 3
months pregnancy. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd
respondent, a case in Crime No.409/2008 was registered
against A.1 to A.5 for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After
investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.5 for
the said offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners, who
are A.2 to A.5 filed the present Criminal Petition seeking to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.184 of 2011.
3. Heard the arguments of Sri S.A.V. Ratnam, learned
counsel for the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 as well as the learned
Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent State and Sri
E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
defacto complainant and perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted that
petitioner Nos.3 and 4, who are A.4 and A.5, respectively, are
married and are living separately and hence they have not
committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel would further submit that there
are no specific allegations against A.2 to A.5 in the charge sheet
and, therefore, the proceedings against them may be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing
for 1st respondent State as well as Sri E. Venkata Reddy,
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent defacto complainant
submits that there are specific allegations against A.2 to A.5 in
the complaint as well as in the charge sheet and hence there
are no grounds to quash the proceedings against them and
that they have to face the trial.
6. On consideration of the material on record and in view of
the fact that there are specific allegations against the
petitioners/A.2 to A.5 in the complaint and also in the charge
sheet, I do not see any valid grounds to quash the proceedings
against them in C.C.No.184 of 2011.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a
sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J
05.10.2017
