Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITIO N No. 219 of2O2L This Crirninzrl Petition has becn filed uni lr:r Section 4g2 ol- the Code o[ Crirninal proceclure, )973, by petitioner/ accu scd No. 1 seeking tc> quash t[ c proceedings in C.C.7O8 of 2O2O on the fite of the II Additir.r ral Judicia-l First Class Magistrate at Mancherial, registered for Lhe offences punishable unclcr Section 498-A of the Indian l)ena1 Code, 1g6O (for short, 'the IPC') and Scction 4 oI rhe Dorvrv prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'thc D.p. Acr'). 2 Brief facts of the case: 2 1. Respondent No.2 lodged a cornplaint on 26.1O.2O2O stating that he-r marriage was perfor,.ned with petitioner/ Accu sed No_ 1, Masanpally Maheresl:, on 14.12.2}lg, at TTD Tirurnala, according to Hindu rites anrl customs. At the tirne of rnarriagc, on demar-rcl of the petitioner arnd his parents, her parents provided 15 tulas of gold as clorvry. After the marriage, she joined the matrirnonial horne at I lyderabacl, where from the very first day, thc petitioner, along u.ith his parents, accused. Nos.2 and 3, allegedly subjected ht:r- to cruelty, both physically and mentally, by demanding an aclrlitional dowry of Rs.2O,OO,OCO/-. Within fifteen davs of the rnarriage, when the 2 petitioner was leaving for Patna for his employment, he refi.rsed to take her with him stating that she rnust first bring the demanded additional dowry amount and serve his parents as a maid. Upon repeated requests, she was sent to Patna on

25.O3.2O1g, but within a week, the petitioner quarreled with her and sent her back to her in-laws' house.

2.2. It is furl-her stated that the in-Iaws contint-red to harass her, denying food and making continuous demands for additional dowry. Thereafter, she was again scnt to her husband in May 20 19, but similzrr harassrnent continued. On

05.O8.2019, shc returned to her parents' house at Mancherial, and on O9.Oa.2O 19, when she went back to her in-laws' housc, she was again abused for not bringing dowry. Despite her parents' efforts to reason with them, the demands persisted. Subsequently, the petitioner took her to Patna on 18.Oa.2O 19 and later returned to Hyderabad on O 1 . lO .2019 . A few days tkierea,fter, he went abroad and inforrned her to stay witLr her parents. It is stated that she suffered fits due to stress on

24.tO.2019 and was treated at SVS Neuro Hospital, Kachiguda. In November 2019, the petitioner is stated to have visited her and expressed his intention to divorce her on the ground that she was suffering from fits. Despite her parents' clarifying that she was never ill before marriage, the petitioner refused to take her back. On several occasions, the petitioner and his parents /, ,/' -"' /_) 3 han-assed a.nrl drove her out of the rnatrirnonial ltornr: dernanding additional dowry. Each timc, her parents t r-red to send her back, but shc was repeatedly sent away. On 18.O7.2O2O, the petitioncr t<>ok her to hcr p:rrental hornc it t Mancherial, prornising to look after her properly and to resir'lc in Hyderabad. However, after staying with her for about tw( 11ty live days, he left for Murnbai for an interview and did no reLlrrn and his mobile phone remained switchcd off thereaftc.. Wlren she and her parents contacted her in-laws, the.y <lisclzrimed any knowledge ol his whereabouts. On 02.O9.2O2(). when she went to her in-laws' I'ror- se with hcr parents, ttrey rc-lu secl to open the door, cornpelling her to call the police. Despite police intervention, the in-laws refused to t; r L:e her back. Subsequentl)/, on 18.O9.2O2O, she received a lr'gal lotice frorn the petitioner- sceking rnutuarl clivorce. Basing rn thc cornplaint dated 26.10.2O2O, Crime No.3O of 2O2O was ri:gistered under Sections 498-4' of the IPC and Section 4 of tht- I).P. Act against the petitioner and his parents and the Investigrrting Officer filed final report irnd the learned II Additional Juclicial First Class MFgistrate, Mancherial, has taken cogn izarrr.e and issued slrtnrnons to the petitioner and otLrer accllsed in C.C.No.7O8 ol 2O2O. Hence, the present criminal petition.

3. Heand Mrs. B. Rachna Reddy, learnecl Senior Counsel appea-ring for the petitioner, Mrs. T. Dhanalakshrli, learned \.- \a L counsel for respondent No.2, ar-rd Mr' M' Vivekananda Reddy' Iearned Assistant Public Prosccutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. I -Statc. 4 Subrnissions of learned corrnsel for ttre petitioner:

4.l.LearnedSeniorCounselsubrnittedthatthepetitionerhas not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations rnade either in the complaint or in the charge sheel, no offence was made out against the petitioner so as to attract Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act She further subrnitted that thc petitioner and respondent No 2 were living separately and the petitioner had issued a legal notice on 15'Og'2O2O for divorce by rnutual consent. After receiving the said notice only' respondcnt No.2 filed the complaint with an oblique rnotive to harass the petitioner. She further subrnitted that neither the petitioner nor his parents ever harassed respondent No 2 nor demanded additional dowry.

4.2. TrLe Investigating Officer, without properly conducting the investigation, filed the final report' On behalf of respondent No.2, no independent witnesses were exarnined' LWs'2 and 3 are parents, LW.4 is maternal uncle of respondent No'2' ald LW.S is only a ta;<i driver. The statements of LWs'2 to 5 are replicas of the statement of LW 1/respondent No'2' ) 1) 5

4.3. She furtLrer subrnitted that the petition,rl' filed O.P.No. 126 of 2027 on the file of the Principa-l Judge, FarrLily Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyclt:rabad, seeking a decree of divorce, wherein respondent No.2 u'rs set ex parte afid a7t ex parte decrec of divorcc was granted on O 1 . 1,1.2027. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed applicatior s I.A.Nos. 184 and 1063 of 2023 seeking to condone the delay o' 285 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and to set aside the ex parte decree dated O1.17.2O21 and the sairl applications were allowed by the trial Court on lO.7l.2O2/' and O3.O4.2O25 respectively. Aggrieved by the above said orrl<:rs, the petitioner approached this Court and filed C.R.P.Nos.2498 and 2497 of 2025 and the above said revisions were dism:ssed by a cornrnon order dated 07 .O8 .2025 and clirected th e triir I Collrt to dispose of the O.P.No.726 of 2O2 I vr.ithin a period of one year. In the said case, respondent No.2 is not appearing.

4.4. She a,lso submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.21E of 2021 seeking quashing of the proceedings and the said pt:tition was allowed on 25.06.2024. Tl:.e allegations rnade agains tLre petitioner and his parents/accused Nos.2 and 3 are identicrrl. By virtr,re of the quashing of the proceedings against accuse<l Nos.2 and 3, the petitionSl"{s also entitled to the sarne benefit. ta, 6

4.5. She fi.rther submitted that rcspondent No.2 rnade omnibtrs allegations and that the ingredients of the above said offences are not attracted against the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4.6. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following j udgrnen ts:

1. Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonarn and others w. State of Bihar and others 1 ; and

2. Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another2.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

5. 1. Per contra, learned counsel sr.rbrnitted that the marriage between the petitioner a,nd respondent No.2 was solemnized ort

14.12.2018 and it was [he second marriage for both parties. Frorn the date of marriage, the petitioner and Lris parents harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. LWs.1 to 5 in their statements recorded under Section 161 L l2o22l 6 scc 599 , 2 (2010) 7 ScC 6yl' I I I i i i 7 of the Cr.P.C. specifically rnentioned the role r:,[ the petitioner in harassing rcspondent No.2 for additional dos ry.

5.2. She frrrther submitted that respondt nt No.2 wants to continr-re hcr rnatrimonia-l Iife with the p,:t itiolrer. Dcspite several requests rnade by respond.ent No.2 arntl her parents, the petitioner has not changed his conduct amd, c,r-r contrary filed a divorce O.['. Whether the petitioner has corr mitted the offence or not, has to be decided after full-fledged t:ia1. Based on the grounds wl-rich were raised by the petitioner. r.-: is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

6. Learncd Assistant Public Prosecutor rciterated the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.2. Analysis

7. Hawing considered the rival subrnisslons made b1, thg respective parties and after pemsal of the m:rierial available on rr:cord, it is revealed that the rnarriage of t irc pelitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 on l.l .12.20la. Ever-r according to both parties, the rnarriage bctvveen thern was a second rnarriage. The record discloses that the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 15.O9.2O2O t(, respondent No.2 seeking her consent for obtaining a decree ol rlivorce by mutual consent. After receiving the said legal notic.:, respondent No.2 Iodged & c-omplaint on 19.O9.2O2O. Respondent No.2 made 8 r) several allegations regarding demand for dowry on 25 03 2O19' 19.O5.2O19, Iir.O3.2O2O, 23.O5.2O2O and 18'O7 2020' However' neither respondent No.2 nor her pz:rents rnade any cornplaint at any point of tirne regarding the alleged harassrnent or demand for additional dowry against the petitioner or his parents' Respondent No.2 lodged the complaint subsequent to rcceiving the legal notice in respect of rnutual divorce' S.Therecordfurtkrerdisclosesthatsimilarallegationswere levelled against accr-rsed Nos.2 and 3, who are nonc other than the parents of the petitioncr ancl they approachcd this Court arrd filed crl.P.I\.1o.2 18 of 2021 sceking to quash thc proceedings in C.C.No.7O8 of 2O2O and the same was a-llowcd on

25.06.2024. g. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed O'P No 126 of 2O2l for seeking grant of decree of divorce against respondent No.2, which is pending before the Farnily Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad'

10. In Kahkashan Kausar supra, tlle Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated its concern regarding the growing misuse of Section 498-A IPC. Referring to Geeta Mehrotra v' State of U'P'3' and G'V' Rao v' ' 1zotz1 toscctyt j !lj I, I .trffiil!7 -- r) 9 L.H,V. Prasad+, the Hon'ble Supreme Court obse r,. cC that matrimonial disputes often lead to indiscriminate roping in ot iamily members of thc husbancl, including those who could have r.r[hctrr"ise mediated rcconciliation. IL was emphasised lhat courts sho.t rl exercise caution and not encourage such litigation. 'lhe Court furtl t:r hc:lcl that falsc or omnibus allegations made in matrimonial disp i.t:s, if unchecked, anlount to misuse of the legal process, and that proct:edings against re latives and in-laws should not be continued r,r ht:n no prima facie case is made out against them. 1 1 . In Preeti Gupta supra, the Hon'ble SuprL nc Court obsen'ed that many complaints under Section 498-A IPC are lodgcd in the heat of the moment over trivial matters and somctrmes [rom oblique motives, though thc risc in genuine dowry-hara ss n rcn t cases remains a grave concern. The Court underscored the proLt sstonal and social responsibilitv of the Bar to avoid endorsing exeLp,qcrated or frivolous versions of incidents, to strive for amicable reso[rtion, and to prevent multiplication of litigation arising from a single clrspute. trmphasizing the fundamenlal object of justice to ascertain tru l-r, punish the guilry and protect the innocent, the Hon'ble Supremc (lourt u'arned that matrimonial complaints often pose acute eviderltiary difficulties. It advised courts to exercise great care and circu nrs pection, especially where omnibus ailegations implicate distant or rar:ly-present relatives, ' (2ooo) 3 scc 693 10 r- and to treat such aliegations as requiring close scrutiny before permitting criminal process to proceed

12. The principles laid down bv the Hon'b1e Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar supra, and Preeti Gupta supra, are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand on ground thal the allegations made by respondent No.2 against the petitioner are general, vague and lacking in specific particulars regarding any act of cruelty or demand for dowry, especialty the complaint u'as lodged subscquent to receiving legal noticc lrom the petitioncr secking her consent for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent' Moreover' similar allegations are ievelled against the petitioner's parents have already been quashed by this Court in Crl P'No 218 of 202 1, rvhich was attained hnality. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse o[ the process of Iaw'

13. It is pertinent to mention that the 1aw governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is well settled by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lals, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as whert the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbablc, are s 1992 Supp (l))Cc a3s / 5 I I :"w.,wr 11 actualed by mala hdes, or where continuance oi proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly ir-rr okcd to secure the ends of justice. 1j+. The inhcrent powers of Court under siecLi(>n 482 of the Cr.P.C. be cxercised to prevent abr.rse of proccss of (lourt. When the allegations in the cornplaint presented bv respondent No.2 to thc police or the staternents of the witness-.cs rccorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not constituting arry lrima,fizcle case for the offences Scctions 498-4 and 406 of the II']C ancl Sections 3 and 4 of ttr<: D.P. Act against the petitionerr; fbr the foregoing reasons, this Court can exercise its power-. in the light of judgrlent of tl-re Hon'ble Apex Court in the casr: of Ch.Bhajanlal supro.

15. For ttrc foregoing reasons, this Cor-rrt is cf t]rc considerecl opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 <tf the Cr.P.C. to qr-rash the proceedings against the petitionc r / accr,rsed No.1 in C.C. No.TOu of 2O2O on the fite of the II Addit.onai Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial.

16. In the result, the crimina-l petition i:; allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.1 in C.C. No.7O8 of 2O2O on the file of the II Additional JrL<Iicicrl First Class Magistrate at Mancherial, are hereby quasherl. It is made clear that any <;f the observations rnade in thLs order are only t2 a\. confined for the purpose of deciding this casc. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR o SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at ltrlancherial 2. The Station House Officer, WPS Srlrampur at A/ancherial. 3 Two CCs to tne PLIBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4 One CC to StvlT. t] RACHNA Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to Str/T. DHANA LAKSHMI TALLAPALEM Advocale [OPUC] 6 Two CD Copies lt,K/si b- HIGH COURT DA'f ED: 1111112025 o i.L v- \t-: ', i . ,: " /..= ; - 'i+ "St$\" \. N '- u >( v- ) ^G'.' . #' ORDER CRLP.No.219 of 2021 CRNNilINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED \ I \