Criminal Petition No. 3002 of 2009 · High Court · 2011

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.7 to 12 (For short, ‘A-7 to A-12’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Preliminary Registered Case No.32 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur registered for offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 406, 448, 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (For short, ‘The Act’).

2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-7 to A-12, the Respondent No.2 is the De-facto complainant in the Preliminary Registered Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Preliminary Registered Case.

3. In brief it is pleaded in the case as follows : The marriage of A-1 in the case with the de-facto complainant was performed on 17-10- 2002 at Guntur and at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash towards dowry, 10 tulas of gold and also an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards household articles were given to A-1. Subsequently, they were blessed with two sons. Later A-1 got addicted

to vices and swallowed the entire dowry amount and even disposed of the gold articles of the de-facto complainant. When the de-facto complainant questioned the highhanded acts of A-1, all the accused in the case supported A-1 and instigated A-1 to assault her. Thereafter, all the accused tortured and necked out her for bringing additional amount of Rs.50,000/-. Later, the father of the de-facto complainant arranged Rs.25,000/- as first installment and sent his daughter to her matrimonial home. But, thereafter also all the accused harassed her for bringing the remaining amount and on 10-07-2007, A-1 assaulted and kicked her and also beat with hands and sticks after tying her. A-2 to A-12 instigated A-1 to do away the life of the de-facto complainant so that another marriage would be performed to him. Further, on 25- 09-2007 all the accused criminally trespassed into her parents house, made galata and demanded to pay the remaining amount and further insisted her to give divorce to A-1. Subsequently, on 29-10- 2007 A-1 to A-3 and A-5 came in a car to her parents house and further demanded her to bring the remaining amount and A-1 kicked her and A-3 and A-5 brought diesel from their car and tried to do away her life by pouring diesel on her body and setting her ablaze. Hence, A-1 to A-12 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-7 to A-12 that only one allegation is made against them in the case which reads that they all supported the action of A-1 in harassing the de-facto complainant for bringing the additional dowry and also instigated A-1 to assault her and later coerced her to bring the additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and necked her out and in fact there are only bald allegations without any specific allegations and in addition to that they happened to be only cousin brothers of A-1 being A-1’s father’s brother’s sons and they along with their wives have been living separately and only for the purpose of harassing all the relatives of A-1, they were falsely implicated in this case and there has been a tendency of roping in as many relatives of husbands as possible for the purpose of making them to suffer or bringing them to accept certain terms in the cases of similar nature and hence it is a fit case to quash the proceedings, in so far as A-7 to A-12 are concerned relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Kans Raj V. State of Punjab and others [1] .

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State has opposed the petition.

6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for?

7. After going through the record, I am of the opinion that only bald allegations are made against A-7 to A-12 without any specific allegations or without attributing any specific overt acts. It is easy to concoct such stories and make them suffer consequently in many ways. Further, there is no dispute that A-7 to A-12 happened to be the cousins of A-1, it is not disputed that they have been living separately. Further, in the absence of any overt acts against them and also in view of the fact that they are only the cousin brothers of A-1 and are living separately, I feel that no prima-facie case is made against them. In cases of this nature, necessary scrutiny should be done before taking cognizance of the cases as otherwise it amounts to abuse of process of law and harassment of innocents. Further, the apex Court in the decision cited supra observed as follows under similar circumstances : “5. ………….. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in- laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.” This observation is quite applicable here. Ultimately, I find that no sufficient material is there prima-facie to prosecute A-7 to A-12 virtually in the case and hence the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the entire proceedings in P.R.C. No.32 of 2008 pending on the file of V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in so far as the Petitioners/A-7 to A-12 are concerned. __________________________ Dated:02-12-2011. Dsh. G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 281 CRIMINAL PETITION No.3002 OF 2009 December, 02, 2011 DSH [1] AIR 2000 S.C. 2324