ARSHANAPALLI RAMBAI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Smt. A. Rambai, the A.2 in C.C. No. 213 of 2015 is no other than the mother -in -law of R.2 (the de facto -complainant Smt. K. Priya). On the report of the de facto -complainant dated 20.01.2013 the police II town, Godavari Khani registered Cr. No. 11 of 2013 for the offences punishable u/s. 498 -A of I.P.C. and u/sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, 'the D.P. Act') against the accused and filed final referred report subsequently and the Magistrate on the protest application of the de facto -complainant supra following the procedure u/s. 200 to 204 r/w 190 of Cr.P.C. vide docket order dated 26.03.2015, with reference to the sworn statements of the de facto -complainant and two more persons, taken cognizance against the petitioner and her son -A.1 (husband of the de facto -complainant). The petitioner is now impugning the said order taken cognizance seeking to quash the proceedings. The factual background speaks that the petitioner's son by name A. Vasantha Babu and the de facto -complainant married on 09.11.2011 at Taj Hotel, Hyderabad, the de facto -complainant originally presented written report to the Inspector, Godavarikhani, dated 20.01.2013 against the petitioner and others stating that her permanent place is 8th incline colony, Godavarikhani, and she is a software engineer working in Bangalore. Earlier her training faculty by name A. Vasanth Babu (A.1) of Secunderabad and herself both loved each other and against will of her parents she married him on 09.11.2011 and stayed at the house of her in -laws at Hyderabad along with her husband for one month after that marriage and at the time of marriage what she earned of Rs. 5,50,000/ - and 8 tulas of gold she possessed, given to her husband as dowry, however in that period of one month stated supra, she was hurled with words of what she brought was no way sufficient that the couple later at Madras lead happy life for about two months and for Sankranti festival when they came to Hyderabad; where her husband, mother -in -law (quash petitioner) and sisters -in -law and brothers -in -law demanded and ill -treated her to bring 2 lakhs from her parents and otherwise, they won't allow her to lead life saying without payment of dowry she married Vasanth Babu.

(2.) Her further averments are that while she was later staying with her husband at Madras, he ill -treated her and unable to bear with his ill -treatment, she telephoned to her maternal uncle by name Suranjan, who along with his friends G. Ravichander Kumar, brought her and her husband to Hyderabad for talks however, the family members of her husband stated as it is their family affair and requires no interference and thereafter her husband aggravated the ill -treatment and unable to bear with she came to her uncle's house at Hyderabad and even thereafter he was teasing her and threatening to do away her by phone calls or e -mails and once he interacted saying he would commit suicide for which she rushed to him and but for about one week, he started harassing. It is further averred that she was transferred to Bangalore to where in the weekends, he was coming and ill -treating and she was even beaten by him in public at Bangalore, that he developed suspension on her chastity and therefrom ill -treating and that ultimately unable to bear with his harassment, she came to her parents house at 8th incline colony and reported to take action against the petitioner and others which was registered as Cr. No. 11/13 and police after investigation by examining as many as 12 witnesses viz., the de facto -complainant, her father and mother as L.Ws. 1 to 3, neighbours as L.Ws. 4 to 8 who could not state anything about any ill -treatment she meted out in the in -laws house and L.Ws. 9 and 10, no other than the B. Ravichander Kumar Advocate and P. Suranjan, the relatives of the de facto -complainant including her uncle who stated no ill -treatment but for the allegation of her husband was by suspecting her fidelity ill -treated her and therefrom the police filed final report as false complaint vide dated 21.09.2013. It is therefrom on intimation about police referred report, she filed protest application before the learned Magistrate, and the learned Magistrate taken cognizance of the case vide protest petition Crl. M.P. No. 1474 of 2014 after recording her sworn statement along with the statements of her father and her maternal uncle P.Ws. 2 and 3. The order speaks "As seen from the record a since allegation even child out of the station deposed by P.W. 1 to 3 against A.1 and A.2 only and hence report against A.3 to A.8 complied. Issue summons to A.1 and A.2 and call on 28.04.2015'. The cognizance order of the Magistrate reproduced supra in italics is to say there is no sense in the order and it is nothing but a careless order, without even application of mind and not even by verified and corrected. As the summons were returned, N.B.W. was issued on 28.04.2015 by posting the matter by 28.10.2015 and the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail as can be seen from the quash petition averments.

(3.) On perusal of the protest application which shows that she presented complaint from which the crime registered and the final report in Cr. No. 11 of 2013 filed by II town police, Godavari Khani, and from the final report intimated to her as mistake of fact, from that she filed the protest petition against said closure of the crime saying she is having strong grounds to contest, hence to reopen the above crime in the interest of justice.