THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6973 of 2021

ORDER:-

The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.529 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District against the petitioners/ A1 to A5. A charge sheet has been filed against the accused in Crime No.404 of 2018 of Women police station, Guntur Urban, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the defacto complainant was performed with A1 on 31.08.2015. A1 was working as Lab Technician at Riyad in Dubai. At the time of marriage, LW.2- Shaik Shakeela, mother of defacto complainant, gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and gold ornaments as dowry to A1 to A3. After the marriage, the defacto complainant and A1 resided only for two months, later A1 used to go to Soudi on his job purpose. During that time, the defacto complainant stayed in her in-laws house. On 07.02.2016, the defacto complainant also joined the accused No.1 at Soudi. After one month, the defacto complainant got pregnancy. Thereafter, the defacto complainant came to Mangalagiri to her parental home from Soudi. When the defacto complainant was carrying 8th month pregnancy, A2 and A3 looked after her well. From the beginning of 9th month carrying, A2 and A3 carried concocted tales against the defacto complainant to A1 and they also used to pick up quarrel with defacto complainant by abusing and beating her, so also dispelled her from their house. Then the defacto complainant informed the same to her mother over phone, and the defacto complainant and her mother went to her in-laws house and questioned A2 about the above occurrence. Then A2 and A3 abused them in vulgar language. Then her mother took the defacto complainant to Ponnur. Later the defacto complainant was blessed with baby boy. Then A1 went to Ponnur, stayed 15 days at Ponnur and went to Soudi. During the wedlock, A5 went to Ponnur and picked up quarrel with defacto complainant and demanded her to write a letter that if the defacto complainant dies, they would not be responsible for that. A4 also demanded the amounts which are paid by her at the time of marriage of the defacto complainant and carried concocted tales against the defacto complainant to A1 to A3. Later defacto complainant got second pregnancy and was blessed with a baby girl and the same was informed by her to A1 to A5. But they failed to come and see of her baby and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. Unable to bear the harassment of accused, the

2

defacto complainant resorted in filing the present complaint and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.404 of 2018 of Women police station, Guntur Urban, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that omnibus accusations have been made against the petitioners that they harassed the defacto complainant. He submitted that subsequent to filing of the present complaint, the defacto complainant resorted in filing Crime No.51/2020 dated 11.02.2020 of Nuzvid town police station. He further submitted that in the second complaint, she categorically stated that she and her husband compromised and resided together in Errabalem and in view of the fact that the parties compromised and that the defacto complainant lead happy marital life with the accused No.1, he prayed for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.529 of 2020.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that these are all disputed question of facts and the same have to be decided in the course of trial and further contended that there are specific accusations made against the accused individually and overt acts attributed to all the accused. It is his contention that in view of the same, when there are disputed questions of fact, this Court

3

would not be in a position to conduct a roving enquiry into the questions of fact in a proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. Perused the record.

6. Admittedly, on a perusal of the charge sheet, it goes to show that there are accusations to the extent that A2 and A3 who are in-laws of the defacto complainant abused the defacto complainant and her mother vulgarly and there are instances that A2 and A3 carried concocted tales as against the defacto complainant to A1 and in respect of that an altercation took place between them. As far as A4 and A5 are concerned, they are alleged to have harassed the defacto complainant for want of more money and A5 is alleged to have demanded to write a letter on white paper to the extent that she is going to commit suicide. Truth or otherwise of these accusations has to be decided in the course of trial. At this stage, this Court would not be in a position to conduct a roving enquiry in respect of allegations made as against the petitioners herein. The defacto complainant has also resorted in filing the second complaint as against the accused No.1 only. Though it is stated in second complaint that she compromised with her husband after lodging the present complaint and resided together with him, there is a cause of action for filing the

4

second complaint, as stated in the second complaint, and the same is a question of fact that has to be decided in full-fledged trial. Merely because a statement made by the defacto complainant in the second report that she compromised with A1, that does not mean that they entered into a compromise in respect of present complaint. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the proceedings in C.C.No.529 of 2020. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

However, since the mother of A1, i.e., A2 is aged parent and the sister of A1 i.e., A3 is married and residing elsewhere and A4 and A5 are aged persons, this Court deems appropriate to dispense with their presence before the trial Court during the trial proceedings. Accordingly, presence of A2 to A5 is dispensed with, except on those days when the Magistrate feels that their presence is necessary.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Date: 23.09.2022 sj

91

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6973 of 2021

Date:23.09.2022

sj