ALEEMUDDIN MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/A1 to A4, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.846 of 2018 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal.

(2.) The facts in issue are that on a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the police, Alwal, registered a case in Crime No.304 of 2017. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners/A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 384 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 08.08.2016. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant gave net cash of Rs.80,000/-, motor cycle worth Rs.82,000/-, four tulas of gold ornaments and other household articles. It is stated that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner/A1 lived happily only for ten days, thereafter, the 1st petitioner/A1 on the instigation of petitioners/A2 to A4, started harassing her both physically and mentally for getting more additional dowry from her parents. In this regard, a counselling was held at Alwal Police Station, but the petitioners/A1 to A4 did not co-operate with the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant. It is also stated that on 10.03.2017 the petitioners/A1 and A3 forcibly obtained the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on affidavit of Khulanama stating that she is wilfully giving declaration for divorce and thereafter they approached the Khazi, along with the said documents for divorce of the 1st petitioner/A1 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. Further, it is stated that the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant were forcibly obtained by the petitioners/A1 to A4 on 10.04.2017 and there is every likelihood of using the said stamp papers by the petitioners/A1 to A4 for obtaining divorce. The Assistant Khaji (LW.6) took the petitioners/A1 and A3 to the Government Khaji (LW.5) and on perusal of the documents, he issued a Khula Certificate on 19.05.2017, but the petitioners/A1 to A4 neither took the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to the Khaji nor made her to talk with him and simply with the affidavit which was obtained from her, they misrepresented with the Assistant Khaji (LW.6) and the Government Khaji (LW.5) and got obtained the Khula Certificates.

(3.) A counter-affidavit came to be filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant stating that she lodged the above complaint against the petitioners/A1 to A4, who harassed her both mentally and physically for want of additional dowry and they also obtained the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on blank stamp papers and white papers. It is also stated that initially the police mentioned Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the F.I.R. and subsequently, the police basing on the contents of the complaint, investigated into the matter and found that the petitioners/A1 and A3 also committed the offence under Section 384 of I.P.C., because they forcibly obtained the signatures of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on blank stamp papers. It is also stated that the petitioners/A1 to A4 did not provide food to her for three days and obtained her signatures forcibly on blank stamp papers and on white papers and subsequently it was typed, scribed and converted into different papers by showing different dates and later she was abandoned on road near to her parents home. Because of the ill treatment, harassment and torture made by the petitioners/ A1 to A4, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant became weak and unconscious and immediately she was taken to nearby hospital and the doctors treated her and she was continued to be in unconscious state of mind for a week and the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant got mental shock and agony by seeing her condition. Later on, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant tried their level best to have negotiation with the petitioners/A1 to A4, but in vain, due to which the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant was constrained to lodge the complaint. It is also stated that during pendency of investigation, the petitioners/A1 to A4 filed Criminal Petition vide Crl.P.No.4674 of 2017 and this Court, by an order, dated 21.06.2017, while disposing of the said Criminal Petition, directed the Police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Accordingly, on 11.09.2017, a notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioners/A1 to A4, but they did not comply with the said notice within the stipulated time. As such, after investigation, the police filed charge sheet.