KIRAN KUMAR DHAPPURI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/ A-1 to A-4, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.610 of 2015 of Women Police Station, Hyderabad (XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 420, 497 and 506 of I.P.C.

(2.) The facts in issue are that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed a private complaint before the XIII- Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and report. Basing on the said reference, the Police, Women Police Station, Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.610 of 2015. The allegations in the complaint are that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is the father of one Jhansi Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the victim"). 1st petitioner/A-1 is the husband of victim; petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A-2 and A-3 are parents, 4th petitioner/A-4 is the sister and Accused No.5 is the second wife of the 1st petitioner/A-1. It is stated in the complaint that the victim studied Engineering and employed in Infosys, Hyderabad, prior to the marriage. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant performed the marriage of the victim with the 1st petitioner/A-1 on 25.02.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, petitioners/A-1 to A-4 demanded Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry, but the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant paid Rs.3.00 lakhs and apart from that 10 tulas of gold ornaments to his daughter, two tulas of gold chian, one tula of gold ring to the 1st petitioner/A-1 and also 20 tulas of silver items, household articles and furniture worth Rs.1.00 lakh were given to the petitioners/A-1 to A-4. After the marriage, the victim joined the 1st petitioner/A-1 at her in-law's house at Adilabad and after few days they both returned back to Hyderabad. The 1st petitioner/A-1 left for Bangalore as he was having employment there. After three months, the 1st petitioner/A-1 returned back to Hyderabad as he got job at Hyderabad and that the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the victim lived in the house of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for a period of one month and later shifted to a rented house at Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad, and they lived happily for some time. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner/A-1 started harassing the victim to give her total salary to him, but she agreed to give part of the salary as she will have her own personal expenses.

(3.) It is further stated that the 1st petitioner/A-1, at the instigation of the 2nd petitioner/A-2, who used to visit them, started abusing the parents of the victim and that the victim informed the same to her parents, who in turn requested them not to harass the victim. However, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 created a quarrel, assaulted and abused the victim and sent her to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant's house, while she was carrying three months pregnancy. Thereafter, the petitioners/ A-1 to A-4 never visited the victim and that the 1st petitioner/A-1 refused to take any responsibility. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant incurred all the medical expenses pertaining to the delivery of the victim. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant invited the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 for naming ceremony of the child, they attended the function, but un-necessarily created a quarrel for the reasons best known to them and when the victim requested them not to create a scene, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 abused them and left the place. The elders by name Mr.K.Vanamali and Mr.G.M.Mahatma, who were present at the time of naming ceremony function, observed the behaviour of the petitioners/ A-1, A-2 and A-4 and that they advised them not to harass the victim and requested the 1st petitioner/A-1 to take back the victim to his company. Due to the said mediation, the victim joined the company of the 1st petitioner/A-1 along with her child. The 2nd petitioner/A-2 joined the victim and the 1st petitioner/A-1 on the pretext that she will look after the child. The 1st petitioner/A-1 used to spend her total salary for his personal use without looking after the welfare of the child. It is further stated that on 15.12.2008, when the victim returned home from office in the evening, her child was crying with high fever. The 2nd petitioner/A-2 never informed the same nor tried to take the child to any doctor and when the victim requested the 1st petitioner/A-1 to come along with her to show the child to a children specialist, he refused for the same. In that situation, the victim informed the same to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who came to their house and took the child to a doctor for treatment. On the same day night at about 10.00 P.M., petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 assaulted the victim mercilessly, abused her and necked her out from the house by snatching all her gold ornaments. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant came along with his son and found the victim outside the house along with child and when he tried to request petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 to open the door, they refused to allow them inside the house. As there is no other alternative, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has taken the victim to his house and since then she is living with her parents. Later, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant along with elders approached the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 and requested them not to harass the victim and to take her to the matrimonial house, but they refused to have any talks with them.