JALADANKI RANGANAYAKAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the 2nd accused (A-2) under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.522 of 2005 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nellore relating to offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) A-1 who is not a party to this petition, is husband of the defacto-complamant/2nd respondent. A-2 is widowed mother of A-1. Marriage of A-1 with the 2nd respondent took place on 08.11.1989. They have one female child and a male child. On report given by the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Women police station, Nellore registered case in Crime No.22 of 2004 and issued F.I.R on 04.09.2004. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 in the lower court on 07.11.2005. It may not be out of place to mention here that originally the case was booked against two other persons who are uncle and aunt of A-1 and they filed Writ Petition No.5937 of 2005 in this Court questioning the same. This Court by order dated 18.08.2005 quashed the F.I.R as against them. While allowing the Writ Petition, this Court directed the investigating officer to complete investigation against A-1 and A-2 and file charge sheet immediately.

(3.) As can be seen from allegations in F.I.R. as well as the charge sheet, there was no connection or contact between the 2nd respondent and A-2 from 07.07.2000 onwards. From 07.07.2000, A-2 has been living in her parents' house at Gudur. There is no allegation either in F.I.R. or in charge sheet that there was any demand for additional dowry and resulting harassment to the defacto-cornplainant by A-2 after 07.07.2000. Allegations of harassment by way of demand of additional dowry were made against A-2 from the year 1989 to the year 1993 and again in 2nd half of the year 1994 and again in October, 1997. There was no meeting of A-2 with the 2nd respondent subsequent to 07.07.2000, There is no allegation of harassment of the 2nd respondent by A-2 at any time subsequent to October, 1997. Therefore, it is contended that charge sheet filed by the police on 07.11.2005 is clearly barred by limitation. On the other hand, it is contended by the 2nd respondent's counsel that it is a case of continuous harassment of the defacto-complainant by A-1 and A-2 till now and that apart from harassment for the sake of dowry physically, even after 07.07.2000. A-1 went to the extent of obtaining exparte decree of divorce from U.S. Court in the year 2003 and it resulted in lot of mental agony to the 2nd respondent. It is further contended that even after this Court granting interim maintenance in the pending appeal against O.S. No.31 of 2004, A-'1 di d not pay any money towards maintenance and that it is nothing but continuous harassment for the 2nd respondent. It may be a fact that because of subsequent events as stated above, the 2nd respondent might be feeling harassed because of the activities or omissions of A-1, Of course, this observation is made without intending to express any opinion in so far as case against A-1 is concerned. But, at the same time, when there were no contacts between A-2 and the 2nd respondent subsequent to 07.07.2000 and when there are no allegations of demand for dowry by A-2 or at A-2's instigation subsequent to October, 1997, it cannot be said that it is a continuous cause of action of harassment in so far as A-2 also. This Court is of the opinion that the alleged harassment of the 2nd respondent by A-2 for the sake of additional dowry was only upto October, 1997 and not thereafter and that there was no contact between the two persons subsequent to 07.07.2000.