EAREDDY SUKUMAR REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners-A1 to A4 seek to quash the proceedings initiated against them in F.I.R.No.5 of 2017 on the file of Women Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner/A1, a case in Crime No.5 of 2017 was registered against the petitioners/A1 to A4 for the aforesaid offences by the Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Karimnagar District. It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage between the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner/A1 took place on 22.02.2016 and at the time of marriage her father has given an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs cash, 40 tulas of gold, Rs.15.00 lakhs worth of agriculture land and Rs.2.00 lakhs worth of household articles. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent joined the company of the 1st petitioner/A1 and they lived happily quite for some time. Subsequently, at the instance of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, the 1st petitioner/A1 started harassing and ill-treating the 2nd respondent to bring additional dowry and that she was thrown away from the house. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent sent back to her matrimonial house through mediation of elders. However, the petitioners again started ill-treating and harassing the 2nd respondent/complainant for additional dowry and as such she gave a complaint on 15.10.2016 to the police against the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to appear before the police concerned and after conciliation, there was no re-union between the parties. Though Vakalath filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, there is no representation on her behalf. Hence, heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/ State.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any of the offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent/complainant filed the present complaint with false and frivolous allegations, after due deliberations and consultations with her family members, as a counter blast to the case i.e., F.C.O.P. No.146 of 20016 filed by the 1st petitioner/A1 against the 2nd respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is in the habit of giving false complaints as and when she was asked to join with the 1st petitioner/A1.

(3.) A perusal of the record reveals that the 1st petitioner/A1, ie., husband of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant, has filed F.C.O.P.No.146 of 2016, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, for restitution of conjugal rights. The said O.P. was contested by the 2nd respondent/wife and she has filed her written statement admitting her relationship with the 1st petitioner/A1 stating therein that her marriage was performed with the 1st petitioner on 22.04.2016. However, she has stated that the 1st petitioner used to harass her on demand of additional dowry and drove her without any valid reason. She also stated that after marriage the 1st petitioner/A1 and the other petitioners started harassing her on the ground that she is not beautiful and they would have got more dowry, if the 1st petitioner could marry any other lady. She also made allegations against the 1st petitioner that he is a habitual drunkard and used to force her to consume alcoholic drinks. However, she categorically stated that after filing of the aforesaid F.C.O.P., she lodged the present complaint against the petitioners on 11.01.2017 which was registered as a case in Crime No.5 of 2017 on the file of the Women Police Station, Karimnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and because of the attitude of the 1st petitioner she is not willing to join with him. She also stated that she is going to file divorce petition for dissolution of marriage between her and the 1st petitioner. The learned Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar, after careful consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the 1st petitioner/A1 is ready to join the conjugal society of the 2nd respondent/wife and nothing elicited in the cross-examination of the 1st petitioner that he treated the 2nd respondent/wife with cruelty by demanding her to bring additional dowry and he himself left the society of the 2nd respondent without any sufficient cause. Further the Family Court has opined that the 2nd respondent/wife herself has voluntarily withdrawn from the society of the 1st petitioner/A1 without reasonable cause or valid grounds and accordingly, allowed the aforesaid F.C.O.P. directing the 2nd respondent/wife to join the society of the 1st petitioner/husband to lead marital life. However, as seen from the material available on record, the 2nd respondent/wife thereafter did not join the society of the 1st petitioner rather she has filed the present complaint as a counterblast to the case filed by the 1st petitioner/A1.