THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.632 of 2008 (Dated : 23-07-2010) Between: Dr.Cartik Ram Kothari S/o Saravan S.Muthu South Jordan Utah, U.S.A., being rep. By power of Attorney Holder Mr.Sarvan S.Muthu …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P. through P.S., W.P.S., Begumpet Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyd. And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.632 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out by Dr.Cartik Ram Kothari under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.420 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and 2nd respondent- M/s.Rekha Negi was solemnized on 5.9.2005 at Secunderabad as per the customs and rites of Hindu religion and it is an inter- caste marriage. After the marriage, the petitioner took the 2nd respondent to his native village to perform some pooja in his family temple. They returned from the village on 14th September, 2005. On 16th September, 2005, 2nd respondent-wife was sent to her mother’s place. According to the 2nd respondent-wife, during her stay with the petitioner-husband, the petitioner and his parents abused her in filthy language without any reason and they also blamed her that she is not a beautiful woman and demanded her to bring money. The petitioner-husband also demanded money from her mother. Parents of the petitioner supported him in making the demands for payment of money. After few days, the 2nd respondent-wife was sent to her mother’s place. During the stay of the 2nd respondent-wife with her mother, she used to visit her in-laws’ house in the morning and return to her parental home in the evening. After few days, the petitioner- husband left for U.S.A. While the petitioner-husband was staying in U.S.A., the 2nd respondent-wife used to visit her in-law’s place every weekend. According to the 2nd respondent-wife, her in- laws ill-treated and harassed her mentally and prevented her from contacting with the petitioner-husband. Her mother-in-law Gomati, her father-in-law-Saravana S.Muthu, sister-in-law- Smt.Meena Madati and her husband Srinivas Mandati passed sarcastic comments on her and abused her in filthy language. She presented a report before the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Begumpet on 20.4.2006 . Lw-6-G.R.Reddy, Inspector of Police, W.P.S., Begumbazar received the report and registered a case in Crime No.37 of 2006. He examined the 2nd respondent-wife and four other witnesses, namely Smt.Prameela Negi, Ramsingh, Madhuram Singh and Sree Ramulu and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completing investigation, he laid charge sheet in the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No. 420 of 2006. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the petitioner-husband (Accused No.1) with a prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the stay of the 2nd respondent-wife with the petitioner after the marriage is only for a few days and thereafter, the petitioner left India for U.S.A. The accusations made by the 2nd respondent-wife in her complaint against the petitioner are concocted for the purpose of the case. He would also submit that even if the accusations made by the 2nd respondent-wife in her complaint are taken, they do not constitute cruelty as defined under Section 498-A I.P.C., and therefore, continuing the proceedings in C.C.No.420 of 2006 against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of Court. 5. In support of his submission, reliance ahs been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramesh v. State of T.N[1], Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another[2], State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.Madhusudhan Rao[3] and Neelu Chopra v. Bharti[4]. 6. In Neelu Chopra’s case (4 supra), the Supreme Court held that in order to lodge proper complaint mere mention of sections and language thereof is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of offence committed by each of accused and role played by each and every accused in committing that offence. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the report presented by the 2nd respondent-wife before the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Begumpet clearly indicates that she was subjected to harassment on the ground of dowry and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. 8. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. 9. Section 498-A makes “cruelty” by husband or relative of husband of a woman, a punishable offence. The word “cruelty” has been defined in the explanation appended to the said section. Section 498-A reads as hereunder:- “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means – (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand].” Therefore, the consequences of “cruelty”, which are either likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury, danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman or the harassment of a woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand are required to be established in order to bring home an offence under Section 498A I.P.C. 10. I have gone through the statement of 2nd respondent-wife recorded by the police during the investigation. She categorically stated that during her stay in her in-laws house, the petitioner- husband demanded money and abused her. At this stage, it cannot be said that the accusation leveled against the petitioner is unfounded. Whether the accusations are well-founded or unfounded is required to be examined during trial. It is suffice to say that the material brought on record satisfy the essential ingredients to charge the petitioner for the offences under Section 498-A IPC. Hence, the criminal petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. The trial Court has to dispose of C.C.No.420 of 2006 uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this petition. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.23-07-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.632 of 2008 (Dated : 23-07-2010) [1] (2005)3 Supreme Court 507 [2] 2008(6) SCJ 498 [3] 2009(4) SCJ 354 [4] 2010(1) SCJ 641