G. Babu & Anr. v. Smt. T.Hima Bindu & Anr.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11135 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are A4 & A5 in C.C.No.860 of 2009 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. The 1st respondent is the defacto- complainant. The petitioners along with three other accused allegedly committed the offence under Sections 498A and 506 IPC as well as the offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners claimed that no case is made out against them and that the case deserves to be quashed as against the petitioners.

The 1st respondent filed a private complaint before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. The learned Magistrate referred the same to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Police thereafter issued First Information Report in Crime No.1172 of 2008.

The marriage between the 1st respondent and the 1st accused was solemnized on 05-09-2007. The 1st respondent claimed that flat dowry both in cash and in kind was given to the 1st accused at the time of the marriage. The 1st accused was working as a Software Engineer at Chennai by the date of the marriage. He later shifted his residence to Hyderabad, securing employment at Hyderabad.

The 1st respondent claimed that she continued to live at the house of her parents at Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, Hyderabad even after her husband-A1 shifted his residence to Hyderabad. A1 used to take the 1st respondent to his house often and that A1 to A5 used to ridicule and abuse the 1st respondent and her father declaring that her father was a miser. The 1st respondent also alleged that she was put to hardship like forcing her to discharge entire household work including washing clothes, cleaning dishes and the like.

While things stood thus, the 1st accused set up separate family in March 2008. The 1st respondent joined her husband on 24-4-2008. On 29-4-2008, A1 quarreled with the 1st respondent and subjected her to cruelty. The subsequent events are not relevant for the purpose of the present case except the allegations that A1 & A5 went to the house of the parents of the 1st respondent and pressurized the 1st respondent divorce by mutual consent.

It is contended by Smt. G. Jhansi, learned counsel for the petitioners that barring for the allegation that A4 & A5 joined the other accused in ridiculing and heckling the 1st respondent and calling her father names that he was a miser, there is no other allegations or overt act against A4 & A5 to constitute any of the offences. The complaint does not show that there was any demand for dowry by A4 & A5 nor was there an instigation by them to the other accused to make such demands. The other allegation against A4 & A5 is that they tried to pressurize the 1st respondent to agree for divorce by mutual consent. I am afraid that these allegations do not constitute any offence including the offence under Section 506 IPC.

I n Neelu Chopra v. Bharti , where there were [1] vague allegations vague relating to the offence under Section 498A IPC, the Supreme Court considered the continuation of the prosecution would be abuse of process of law. In the present case, it is not a question of vague allegations. It is a case of no allegations so far as the offences under Section 498A or 506 IPC as well as under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned. I, therefore, considered that this is a fit case where the proceedings against respondents 4 & 5 deserve to be quashed.