KURAMA ANAND PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/A1 to A5, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.738 of 2017 on the file of the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-X-Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

(2.) The facts in issue are that on a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the police, K.P.H.B. Colony Police Station, Cyberabad, registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2017. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners/A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations in the charge sheet are that the marriage of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant was performed with the 1st petitioner/A1 on 06.02.2014. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant gave cash of Rs.7,00,000/- towards dowry. After the marriage, nuptial ceremony was arranged in parents' house of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for three days. On the first day, the 1st petitioner/A1 avoided to consummate the marriage on the plea that he was tired and could not participate in the cohabitation. On the second day and third day also, the 1st petitioner/A1 repeated the same. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant stayed with the 1st petitioner/A1 at Bethanypeta, Bhimavaram for six months, along with other petitioners. During the said period also, the 1st petitioner/A1 maintained distance from her during night times and avoided to consummate the marriage on the plea that he was trying to loose his weight and requested her not to solicit sex with him. On 12.04.2014 the petitioners/A1 to A5 subjected the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for the sake of additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs by altercating with her on the plea that the dowry paid by her parents was insufficient. On 10.05.2014, the petitioners/A1 to A5 confined the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant in a room throughout the day without providing any food and assaulted the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on several times and demanded additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs. The contents of charge sheet also reveal that at the time of marriage, the 1st petitioner/A1 was working in Globarina Technologies, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, and in the month of August, 2014, he set up a separate residence in Pragathi Nagar, Hyderabad. On the demand made by the 1st petitioner/A1, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant came down to Hyderabad and purchased Electrolex Refrigerator, washing machine, TV, Double Cot, Mixie and other household articles worth Rs.1.00 lakh and till November, 2014, both of them stayed in Pragathinagar. During the said period, the other petitioners/A2 to A5 used to visit them frequently and all of them demanded her and her parents to pay additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs and when the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant expressed her inability to fetch such an amount, the petitioners/A1 to A5 subjected her to both physical and psychological torture and also domestic violence. The 1st petitioner/A1 never consummated the marriage and whenever, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant asked him as to why he was avoiding her, he used to inform to her that he was taking medicine for the infection developed in his stomach and as per the doctor's advise only he was avoiding her and also threatened her with dire consequences, if she divulge the same to others, including her parents, as such she could not inform the same to anybody. In the 1st week of December, 2014, the 1st petitioner/A1 shifted the house to Nizampet, Hyderabad and both the couple lived together till June, 2015. During the said period also the 1st petitioner/A1 used to avoid the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant without consummating the marriage on the plea that he was suffering from ill-health. In the last week of January, 2015, when the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant advised the 1st petitioner/A1 to approach sexologist to undergo necessary treatment, he assaulted her very badly. Though the same was informed to the petitioners/ A2 to A5 about the inefficiency of the 1st petitioner/A1 to consummate the marriage, they told to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant that she would adjust with him without disclosing the same to others and also informed that they know the said problem prior to the marriage. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners/A1 to A5 have wilfully suppressed the impotency of the 1st petitioner/A1 and cheated the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and on account of the fraud played by the petitioners/ A1 to A5, the family life of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has been ruined. As the parents and elders were insisting the 1st petitioner/A1 to undergo treatment, all of a sudden on 02.05.2015, the 1st petitioner/A1 beat the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant indiscriminately and also made vain bids to kill her by pressing her neck with his two hands and thereafter tried to set her ablaze by sprinkling kerosene and left the home after taking gold jewellery weighing about 15 sovereigns and when the same was informed to the other petitioners/A2 to A5, they have supported the 1st petitioner/A1 only. In the 1st week of June, 2015, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant raised the dispute before the elders and in the meeting of the elders, all the petitioners/A1 to A5 came and reiterated their demand for additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs and refused the proposal of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for undergoing treatment of the 1st petitioner/A1 under a qualified sexologist and also admitted that he is an impotent. All the petitioners/A1 to A5 harassed the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant mentally and physically for want of additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs and on 18.12.2016, the petitioners/A1 to A5 came to the residence of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant in a car and threatened her with dire consequences and on the instigation of the petitioners/A2 to A5, the 1st petitioner/A1 caught hold of her tuft with his left hand and give fist blow on her face with his right hand and all the petitioners/A1 to A5 have forced the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to sign on non-judicial stamp papers showing her acceptance for taking divorce.

(3.) Though the matter was posted for final hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant did not evince any interest to proceed with the case for the last three occasions. Hence, heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A5, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and perused the record.