THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7872 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner preferred this petition to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No. 25 of 2011, pending on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapet, East Godavari District, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 for an offence under Sections 498-A, 354 Read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised nearly 13 points for consideration. The points are reproduced as under: “1) The Prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the marriage in between Defacto complainant and petitioner (A1) is love marriage, which was held on 10.4.2010. The marriage was held without consent of Defacto complainant’s parents and Accused No.1’s widow mother. The question asking dowry does not arise. 2) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto complainant/Respondent No.2 foisted a false complaint under sections 498-A & 354 IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. 3) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto complainant passed M.Sc., and worked as Asst. Professor in Sri Ramachandra Engg. College, Eluru and A-1 also well educated person. A-01 passed B.A. and Diploma in Hotel Management. The Hon’ble High Court Division Bench held that the Educated women resorting to proceedings U/s 498-A IPC is abuse process of law. I filed copy of Judgment for this Honourable Court kind consideration. 4) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that after marriage, Defacto Complainant and her husband (A-1) never talked with the petitioner (A-2) Petitioner also neither visited the Defacto complainant house nor her parents house also. At the same time they are also not visited the petitioner’s house. Defacto complainant foisted a false complainant with exaggerated allegations. The prosecution also not charged that allegations. 5) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto Complainant and A-1 lived very short period of 6 months i.e. from 10-4-2010 to 28-11-2010. During the period both lived separately in two houses (1) Opposite to Brundavan Park, Pathebada, Eluru, West Godavari District, (2) Chodimiella (V), Near R.T.A. Office, Eluru. 6) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto Complainant foisted a false case against the petitioner (A-2) under Sections 498-A, 354 I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. 7) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the petitioner herein woman and widow. The Section 354 I.P.C. does not attract to the petitioner. 8) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the statements of Defacto Complainant and L.W.2 to L.W.89 are close relatives. Their statements are one and the same in favour of Defacto Complainant. 9) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that as per petitioner’s caste customs, if any dowry give, to their daughter only. 10) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the A-1 used to spend huge amounts for the welfare of Defacto Complainant and her sister. I filed copy of Bank statements for this Hon’ble Court kind consideration. 11) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto Complainant and her father demanded A-1 to deposit an amount of Rs. 3.00 lakhs in favour of Defacto Complainant and Regd. Agricultural land of an extent of Ac.2.00 in the name of Defacto Complainant for her life security. Due to this Civil Dispute, Defacto Complainant deserted the Accused No.1. Defacto Complainant herself voluntarily went away to her parents house and foisted a false case. Here Defacto Complainant had not necked out from matrimonial house and no harm caused to life and limb. So, the Section 498-A I.P.C. does not attract. 12) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto Complainant and A-1 lived in Chodimella (V), Eluru Rural Mandal, West Godavari District, entire cause of arose in Eluru Rural P.S. West Godavari District. But, Defacto Complainant made false complaint in Atreypura Police Station, East Godavari District. The Atreyapuram P.S. has no power authority and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. On the sole ground the P.R.C. No. 25/2011 to be quashed. 13) The prosecution/Investigation Officer failed to consider the Defacto Complainant apology letter written by with her own handwriting. This Honourable Court may be pleased to compare apology letter and with her own handwriting. As per apology letter Defacto Complainant committed very big mistake and spoiled the lives of A-1 and Petitioner (A2) by foisting the false complaint. On the sole ground the P.R.C.No. 25/2011 to be quashed.” The 1st point according to the petitioner, the marriage between the defacto complainant and the petitioner is a love marriage, hence, the question of demand of dowry does not arise. This Court is unable to understand the said contention and is of the view that whether it is an arranged marriage or a love marriage, it cannot be said that there cannot be any question of demanding dowry. As far as the 2nd point is concerned, it is contended that the case is nothing but foisted, but no reasoning is given to show that the case is foisted. As far as the 3rd point is concerned, the defacto complainant, who is well educated lady and having completed her M.Sc. and working as an Assistant Professor in Sri Ramachandra College of Engineering, has resorted to misuse the provision of law, has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in SARITHA Vs. R. RAMACHANDRA[1] in which it is observed by Their Lordships observed as follows: “INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, Section 498-A – Offence of cruelty – Misuse of the beneficial provision – Wife, who filed a petition for divorce filed a criminal case against husband and his entire family – Conduct of appellant wife showing that she being at fault wants to misuse the process of law and harass her husband and his family members for the sin of marrying her – In spite of husband expressed magnanimity towards her without ill-will and extended his arms to lead a happy marital life, she was adamant and did not agree even though she has nothing to say against him and even after leading conjugal life with him for seven days in a jovial mood with him, when they were sent to a holiday resort by the court for a week to save the marriage – Judges expressed anguish over the attitude of some of the educated women and in resorting to proceedings under Section 498-A, IPC in abuse of beneficial provision (Section 498-A, IPC) intended to save women from unscrupulous husbands – Suggestion therefore made to Law Commission and Parliament either to continue the provision Section 498-A in the same form or to make the offence a non-cognizable one and a bailable one to save innocent husbands and their men from harassment by some of the ill-educated women by misusing the provision.” In so far as the said contention is concerned, it is not applicable to the petitioner’s case because the allegations therein are raised only against husband by the defacto complainant. The husband of the defacto complainant is also an educated man. Even that ground is also not maintainable on the ground that since both the husband and wife are educated, it is not necessary to quash the proceedings pending before the Court. As far as the 4th point is concerned, according to the petitioner she never talked to the petitioner and also never visited the house of the defacto complainant and the allegations are exaggerated in nature. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to substantiate his contention that the petitioner never visited the house of the defacto complainant contrary to the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant in Para 3, wherein it is stated that “in the month of August, her mother-in-law came to her house and looked after well for some time , later she subjecting her for harassment both physical and mental on the ground that they have not brought dowry. Santharam (Accused No.1) could get 25 acres and car towards the dowry. My mother-in-law instigated her son to leave him, she will perform another marriage with more dowry and she encouraged him to kill me.” In another paragraph, it is stated as follows: “On 17.11.2010 my mother-in-law came to their house. On 18.11.2010, both of them pulled out my Sutras from her and necked out from her house, they beat me and obtained signatures on some papers. From 19th onwards I have been living with my father’s house in Ankampalem” The said averments clearly indicate the involvement of the petitioner herein. As regards the 5th point, it is stated that they lived together for a short time. It is not necessary that an offence shall be committed only if they live for a long time. Even in a short time, an offence can be committed against the lady, who is wife of the Accused No.1 and the daughter-in-law of the petitioner herein. As far as the 6th point is concerned, no offence under Section 354 IPC can be attracted to the petitioner, since she being a lady. As far as the commission of offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, it speaks about the commission of an offence either by a child or a lady or a male. Nothing in this section suggests that if the offence is committed by a lady, does not amount to an offence. Hence, rejected. The 7th point is concerned, it is stated that it is a false case. In such a case, there is no necessity for this Court to decide or pass an order on that ground. The 8th point is concerned, L.Ws.2 to 8 who are cited as witnesses are close relatives. It has to be noted the offences , under Section 498-A, 354 and 306 IPC arising out of the matrimonial disputes, necessarily, the relatives shall be the witnesses. Since the witnesses are related, it cannot be said that they are interested. The word “interested” is explained by the Supreme Court as follows: “Persons, who are related, does not mean that they are interested witnesses. Interested witnesses means, a person, who is interested in getting conviction to the accused concerned” Hence, the said point is also rejected. The 9th point: Investigation Officer failed to see the petitioner’s caste customs. According to the petitioner’s counsel, if a dowry is given, it will be given to their daughter only. So, the petitioner is not a beneficiary. Hence, she cannot be prosecuted. I am unable to understand the said contention, since the beneficiary is not herself, the same is transferred to other persons, in whom she is interested. Hence, the said contention is also rejected. 10th Point: The other contention is that A-1 spent huge amounts for the welfare of the defacto complainant. The present petitioner being mother-in-law of the defacto complainant is no way concerned. In so far as the 11th point is concerned, A-1 has deposited Rs. 3 lakhs in favour of the defacto complainant. This is also in connection with the husband and not the petitioner herein. Further, it is contended that the defacto complainant lived at different places under different territorial jurisdiction, but not in the same jurisdiction. But, in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court, wherein Hon’ble Sri Justice Sathasivam held that “the complaint can be lodged by the person having suffered in the hands of the mother-in-law and/or husband where she resides after the said humiliation and harassment and hence that point is also rejected.” Lastly, it is contended that the defacto complainant also forwarded an apology letter to the petitioner’s son and the learned counsel wants this Court to compare the said signatures on the apology letter and its contents. That exercise can only be done by the trial Court. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that squarely the offences under Sections 498-A, 354 read with section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are applicable to the petitioner, prima facie. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a lady and a widow, her presence is dispensed with before the trial Court except the dates on which the learned Magistrate insists for her presence. _______________ RAJA ELANGO, J. 5th September, 2011. CHV [1] 2002(4) A.L.T. 592(D.B)