Judgment · High Court · 2012

The Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.100 of 2011, dated 7.7.2011 of NTPC police station, Ramagundam mandal, Karimnagar District. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.9400 of 2011 are A.1 to A3, and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.6227 of 2011 are A4, A6 to A12 respectively, in the crime.

The second respondent/complainant lodged a private complaint against the petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 452, 506, 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, alleging as follows. Complainant is the legally wedded wife of A.1. A.2 to A.9 are blood relatives of A.1 and having domestic relationship with each other. A10 to A12 are neighbours of A1. Marriage between A1 and the complainant was performed on 28.11.2007 and at the time of the marriage, parents of the complainant presented cash, gold and silver as dowry. After the marriage, they lived happily for one month only and thereafter, all the accused started demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,00,000/-. Complainant also stayed with A1 in USA for three years. There also, he used to demand for the additional dowry and also started harassing her physically and mentally saying that she is not a beautiful lady. He used to ring up to her parents and say that only after fulfillment of his demand, he would cohabit with her otherwise he would send her back to India. After return from USA also, the accused demanded the additional dowry and threatened that they would not allow her to go with A1 and would kill her. Previously, she filed a case in crime no.132 of 2010, but the same was withdrawn in pursuance of a counseling. On one occasion, she attempted to commit suicide. On 30.4.2011, the accused beat her and necked out from their society. On 28.6.2011, all the accused forcibly entered into house of the complainant with an ulterior motive of criminal intention and demanded either to give the additional dowry or give consent for divorce, and all the accused snatched away her passport and certificates. Hence, the complaint.

Heard both sides.

Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when there is abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice or to carryout the If the uncontroverted order passed under this Court. allegations in the complaint make out a prima facie case for the offence alleged, then the question of quashing the complaint at threshold does not arise. Further, when the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie case of cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of police to conduct investigation.

The allegations in the complaint would go to show the accused demanded and harassed complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- and on 30.4.2011, the accused beat the complainant indiscriminately and necked out her from matrimonial home; on 28.6.2011, all the accused forcibly entered into house of the complainant at NTPC with ulterior motive of criminal intention and demanded to bring the additional dowry otherwise give consent for divorce.

Under Section 498-A I.P.C., whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty, he shall be punishable. Explanation to Section 498A I.P.C. defines ‘cruelty’, which reads:

(a) any willful conduct which is of a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

The above provision makes it clear that any the meaning of ‘cruelty’ within unlawful demand Explanation to Section 498A IPC.

Section 378 IPC reads that whoever intending to take dishonestly movable property out of possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft. The allegation in the report would go to show that all the accused took away the passport and other certificates forcibly. Prima facie the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC is made out against A.1 to A.9.

There cannot be any dispute that under Section 498A IPC, whoever, being husband or relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punishable. Admittedly, as seen from the complaint itself, A10 to A12 are neighbourers of A1. Simply because they were allegedly present along with other accused, it cannot be said that they are liable for prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Therefore, continuation of the impugned proceedings against A10 to A12 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. In so far as the other accused are facie case is made out for the concerned, a prima offences alleged and there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against them and the police are at liberty to conduct investigation against them.