B. DHEERAJ REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/A-1 and A-2 seek to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.122 of 2016 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner/A-1, a case in Crime No.239 of 2015 was registered against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 for the aforesaid offences by the Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad. It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage between the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner/A-1 took place on 17.02.2002 and at the time of marriage her father had given an amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs cash, a Car, furniture and all household articles apart from 250 square yards building towards dowry. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant joined the company of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and they lived happily quite for some time. Subsequently, the 1st petitioner/A-1 started harassing her mentally and physically and demanded her to get additional dowry from her parents for establishment of new business and a residential flat. The 1st petitioner/A-1 used to come to the house in heavy drunken condition, abused and harassed the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on one pretext or the other. Due to unbearable harassment, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant arranged amount for his business and in the year 2003, the 1st petitioner/A-1 started business in the name of Priyanka Car Decors. In the year 2005, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant also provided a residential flat at Prakashnagar, Begumpet for the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. On 18.05.2007, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant blessed with a female child. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner/A-1 started demanding her to get more dowry from her parents to establish another business at Warangal. Again her parents arranged the required amount and the 1st petitioner/A-1 established another business in the name of PIAGGIO Motors. Right from the marriage, the father of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant had given Rs.2.00 crores towards establishment of various businesses. Even after fulfilled his illegal demands, the 1st petitioner/A-1 never looked after the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and her baby well and he neglected them. When the said ill treatment was informed to the 2nd petitioner/A-2, he supported the 1st petitioner/A-1. It is also stated that since from the date of birth of the child, the 1st petitioner started suspecting her character, and took their daughter to BIO Axis, DNA Research Centre, Nagole, Hyderabad, and created fake reports stating that he is not a natural father of the child. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that there were no records pertaining to DNA test conducted by BIO-Axis, DNA Research Centre, Nagole on the 1st petitioner/accused and his daughter. Without consent and knowledge of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the 1st petitioner/A-1 conducted DNA test and obtained the fake reports and thereafter blackmailing her using such reports. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.122 of 2016 and the same is pending before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(3.) Notice sent to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant was returned unserved with an endorsement 'un-claimed by the 2nd respondent'. Hence, heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/ State.