SANTHOSH PADMANABHA Vs. STATE BY HANUMANTHANAGARA POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners 2 and 3 are the in-laws and petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant'). She lodged a complaint before Hanumanthanagar police on 12.12.2015 based on which Crime No.415/2015 was registered against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DP Act' for short). After investigation, charge-sheet is laid against the petitioners for the above offences. The petitioners have sought to quash the initiation of the proceedings and the submission of charge-sheet against them for the above offences.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned SPP-II for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and do not make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The complainant lived with petitioner No.1 only for six years. Except alleging that during this period their relationship was not cordial and that there were some instances of differences between the parties, in the complaint she did not allege any specific instance of cruelty. It is only in her further statement recorded after 31/2 months, the complainant has come up with fresh allegations only to foist false charges against petitioners. He submits that petitioner No.4 is a permanent resident of USA and did not reside with the complainant at any point of time and therefore there was no basis for the complainant to make allegations against petitioner No.4. Even with regard to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the complainant herself has admitted that as and when they used to come to her house, they did not allow her to close the door of her bedroom which indicates that even petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were not residing with the complainant. Under these circumstances, there is no truth or substance in the allegations made by the complainant that at the instance of petitioners 2 to 4, her husband subjected her to cruelty and harassment. The learned counsel has referred to the stamping on the passport and would submit that during the period from 22.04.2011 to 10.12.2011, 21.09.2012 to 09.11.2012 and 25.06.2013 to 14.11.2014, petitioners 2 and 3 were out of India. The above document coupled with the fact that these allegations are levelled against these petitioners only in her further statement given after about 31/2 months from the date of lodging the complaint, would indicate that with malafide intention to implicate the petitioners in the alleged offences, the complainant has garnered false evidence and hence the prosecution of the petitioners being malafide and vexatious, is liable to be quashed.