CHANCHARAPU MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to have the proceedings in C.C.No. 552 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal, quashed.

(2.) The petitioner is the father in law of the second respondent and is the accused in C.C.No. 552 of 2000. The allegations in the charge sheet are that the marriage of the second respondent was performed with one Ch. Rajashekar Reddy, the son of the petitioner, on 20-12-1989 at Karimnagar and at the time of marriage, the parents of the second respondent had presented Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and gold arnaments weighing 20 tulas. After the marriage, the second respondent joined her husband and they were blessed with one daughter. On 30-11-1997, the second respondent's husband died due to liver hymphoma. The Second respondents parents, after the death of her husband, on 14-12-1997,04-07-1998 and 30-7-1998, demanded the accused to return the gold ornaments and cash, which was given by them at the time of marriage, but the accused had not given them a single paise and is said to have misappropriated the cash and 20 tulas of gold ornaments. Due to the harassment of the accused, the second respondent returned to her parent's house. It is alleged that on 14-12-1997, the petitioner herein came to the second respondent's house and forcibly took away 10 silk sarees, 15 dresses of her daughter, 6 blankets, one air cooler and photo albums belonging to her. It is alleged that the second respondent and her husband invested one lakh in shares in Vikas Bharathi Vidyanikethan School, located near Madikonda, managed by one Sri K. Satyanarayana Reddy, and that after her husband's death, the second respondent requested Sri K. Satyanarayana Reddy to return the share value. It is alleged that in the meantime, the petitioner had brought, and is continuing to bring, pressure on Sri K. Satyanarayana Reddy not to refund the amount to the second respondent. It is alleged that on 02-11-1999, at 12.45 p.m. the petitioner herein came to Adarsha English Medium School, enticed her daughter to go with him on false pretexts and attempted to kidnap her. The petitioner herein on 07-05-2000 and 09-05-2000, rang up the second respondent's parent's house and abused her in vulgar language. It is alleged that due to the acts of the petitioner herein, the second respondent was suffering from mental agony. A case in Cr.No. 128 of 2000, under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered. L.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and their statements were recorded. Thereafter, the present charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the ingredients of Section 498-A, and 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not satisfied and as such~the proceedings, in C.C.No. 552 of 2000, are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel would submit that, even otherwise, the offences of which the petitioner was charged, is barred by limitation. According to the learned counsel, since the marriage of the second respondent and the petitioner's son took place on 20-12-1989 and the complaint was filed on 11-05-2000, the complaint and the subsequent charge sheet filed on 30-6-2000 are barred by limitation. Learned counsel would submit that the second respondent filed a partition suit in O.S.No. 25 of 1998 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Warangal, and the learned Judge, by judgment dated 03-06-2002, had directed partition of 'A' Schedule property. Learned Counsel would submit that the second respondent's request for partition of 'B' and 'C' Schedule properties was rejected by the Civil Court and in fact, 'C' Schedule properties relate to the very same claim of having paid rupees one lakh in cash and 20 tulas of gold as dowry. Learned counsel would submit that since the Civil Court disbelieved the second respondent's version and since the order of the Civil Court is binding on the Criminal Court, the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not attracted. Learned counsel would place reliance on V.M. Shah v. State of Maharashtra in this regard.