K. BHARATI PADMA Vs. CHANDRAKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are A2 and A3 among three accused of C.C. No. 199 of 2014 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, where the learned Magistrate has taken cognisance for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 506 of Penal Code and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is out come of the report of the first respondent/defacto complainant in Crime No. 18 of 2014 dated 02.02.2014 who is no other than wife of the first accused.

(2.) The report of the defacto complainant at Mugalpura, Hyderabad in registering Crime reads that she is wife of A1. Their marriage was performed on 12.05.1999 at Shalibanda tied under Hindu Law and they are blessed with a son Master Manish Kumar. At the time of her marriage her parents gave dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs cash and gold of 10 tulas as per demand and after marriage, she joined her husband in in -laws house, Karmanghat of Ranga Reddy District and they lived happily for two years and thereafter her sisters -in -law Bharathi and Susheela and her husband started torturing and harassing including physically to bring additional dowry, even after her parents paying Rs. 3 lakhs in the year 2002, they started harassing again some time later for additional dowry and in the year 2008 her husband and the two sisters -in -law thrown her out of the matrimonial house to meet the demand of additional dowry and many a time her family members tried to solve the problem and while so on 02.02.2014, she came to know that her husband Anand Kumar is going to perform second marriage at Sidillagutta, Shamshabad, she informed to police and the police personally came there and stopped the marriage and thereby the complaint is given to take action. The report received on 02.02.2014 at 12.30 noon and registered as Crime No. 18 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 498 A and 506 of Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the three accused.

(3.) The defacto complainant in her statement to the police during investigation reiterated the said incident. LW.2 mother of the defacto complainant also reported that on 02.02.2014 they came to know that Anand Kumar was going to perform second marriage at Sidillagutta and they informed to local police. LW3 brother of defacto complainant also reiterated the same, LW4 one Raja Ratnam of Moghulpura stated that he is close friend of defacto complainant's father and on 02.02.2014, he received information from brother of Chandrakala about Anand Kumar, husband of Chandrakala was going to perform the second marriage at Sidillagutta temple and immediately they along with police personnel went to Sidillagutta temple and on enquiry the temple authorities refused to give information and they noticed the marriage arrangement in the Satram of the temple and said Anand Kumar in the marriage dress and was about to undergo second marriage and the police there stopped the marriage and picked Anand Kumar into custody and handed over to Moghalpura Police Station and there they lodged the report. LW5 Sri Chathan Kumar Suri claimed to be friend of defacto complainant -Chandrakala's family also reiterated what LW3 stated so also LW6 Krishna Yadav, LW7. The Assistant Sub Inspector of RGI Airport Police Station along with his staff apprehended the said Anand Kumar and stopped the marriage proposed to be performed and handed him over to the Station House Officer for necessary action. So also by LW8 police constable Malikarjun, LW9 Head Constable, LW10 Junior Clerk of Sidheswara Temple, Sidillagutta, speaking about the said marriage arrangement informed that the police came there and apprehended the accused and LW11 Siva Rama Prasad constable of Moghalpura Police Station deposed about taking custody of Anand Kumar from RGI Airport Police and handed over to SHO Moghalpura for necessary action. The remand report of A1 who was arrested on 02.02.2014 as referred supra reiterates the same. The quash petitioners A2 and A3 denied the allegations made by the first respondent, who lodged a false complaint against the petitioners while alleging that the marriage between defacto complainant and A1 was performed on 12.05.1999 and they were blessed with male issue in their wedlock, that the defacto complainant has been residing at her parents for the past 14 years subsequent to the birth of the child on 29.05.2001, out of their wedlock on 12.05.1999 that even several attempts made to bring her back to join his company became futile and he got issued legal notice dated 19.11.2007 asking her father to send her to his marital life and having issued reply stating the false allegations for which rejoinder also issued and defacto complainant's brother filed O.S.No.2569 of 2007 on the file of X Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Hyderabad against A1 Anand Kumar herein with false claim of there is a hand loan given at Rs. 3 lakhs i.e., contested and ultimately the Suit was ended in dismissal on 24.09.2012 and thereafter even Anand Kumar made efforts to secure his wife. She failed to join and the defacto complainant and her family members sent unsocial elements against Anand Kumar and threatened him and out of grudge later foisted the false case having invalided in their illegal attempts. It is also contention that no offence is made out against the petitioners/A2 and A3 even in part from entire prosecution material to substantiate and thereby proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is also the contention that the second accused got school going children and she is a widow residing separately after marriage with her husband and even now she is falsely implicated and proceedings are thereby liable to be quashed.