MOHD MUSHAHED AHMED Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 (for short, 'A-1 to A-5') under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No. 8 of 2010 of Nagarkurnool P.S., Mahaboobnagar District, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool, registered for offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Whereas the Petitioners are A-1 to A-5, the Respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant in the crime. For the sake of convenience, I fresh the parties as arrayed in the crime.

(2.) Initially, A-1 to A-5 approached the parents of the de facto complainant in the year 2003 proposing the de facto complainant to A-1 in marriage. Then they demanded her parents to pay or give Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash towards dowry, Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of fully automatic washing machine, Samsung Refrigerator, complete bed set with rubberized coir mattress, steel almyra etc., and 8 totals of gold in the shape of ornaments along with some customary silver ornaments, in addition to which, they also demanded the parents of the de facto complainant to provide dinner for their relatives, friends and guests on the day of marriage with a threat to cancel the marriage unless the demands were met with, whereby the parents of the de facto complainant having no other option agreed for the demands. Accordingly, the marriage of the de facto complainant with A-1 was performed on 20-7-2003 at Nagarkurnool as per Mohammedan Law, and the parents of de facto complainant complied with all the demands of A-1 to A-5.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-5 would contend that there are only bald allegations, in other words there are no specific allegations against A-1 to A-5. In fact, A-1 got married the de facto complainant and in turn, the sister of A-1 got married to the brother of the de facto complainant but after the marriage the brother of the de facto complainant used to harass the sister of A-1 who thereby filed a complaint against her husband and in laws, but as a counter blast, the de facto complainant herein filed the complaint in this case. The further contention of the learned counsel for A-1 to A-5 is that on 18-3-2009 A-1 pronounced irrevocable Talaq by following the prescribed procedure as per the Muslim rites and customs and on the same day he got issued a legal notice through his counsel to the de facto complainant to take back all the jehaj articles. Further, the de facto complainant filed M.C. No. 32/2009 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which provision is meant for filing of maintenance cases by a divorced woman, which reflects that the de facto complainant had admitted the divorce, though she claimed in the maintenance case that A-1 pronounced irrevocable divorce on 18-3-2009 without following due process of law. The allegations made in the complaint are pertaining to the period prior to 2009 but the complaint was filed on 29-7-2009 i.e., subsequent to the divorce, which took place on 18-3-2009. He has placed reliance upon the decision in M. Saravana Porselvi v. A.R. Chandrashekar (1), 2008 11 SCC 520 in this context while affirming that filing of the complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law.