THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1466 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 The petitioners herein are A.3 and A.4 in C.C.No.381 of 2009 taken on file by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners and two others for the alleged offences punishable under sections 498-A and 420 of IPC and also under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they approached this court and filed this revision questioning the order dated 13.05.2010 in Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2010 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad whereby the learned Magistrate was directed to try the petitioners also as A.3 and A.4. 2 Brief facts are that the wife who is the 1st respondent herein filed a private complaint against her husband (A.1), mother-in-law (A.2), Petitioners herein (A.3 and A.4) and one mediator (A.5) who fixed the alliance stating that they have committed the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506, 323, 324, 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC and also under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3 (i) The allegations of the said complaint, in brief, are that the marriage of the 1st respondent was performed with one Nimmagadda Shashidhar who is arrayed as first accused in the case on 20.02.2008 at Vijayawada and the same was consummated. It is further stated that one Mr. Katragadda Venkateshwara Rao who is arrayed as A.5 on coming to know that the parents of the 1st respondent are looking for alliance, approached her parents on 18.12.2007 and informed that the 1st accused is having a building worth one crore, six acres of land at Raichur and a three bed room flat purchased out of his earnings and he also informed that the first accused is a well mannered person and well educated person. Basing upon the said information, the parents of the 1st respondent arranged her marriage with the first accused. She further stated that the engagement ceremony was celebrated on 10.02.2008 with an expenditure of Rs.1 lakh at which time her parents gave one gold chain and one ring weighing 50 grams worth of Rs.50,000/- pursuant to the demand of dowry by her in laws. It is further submitted that after the engagement ceremony, to the utter surprise of my parents, my husband’s mother i..e N. Jhansi Lakshmi, elder sister Kakarla Sushma and her husband Kakarla Venkata Ragava Khanna made huge demand of dowry for performing marriage i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- 50 tolas of gold ornaments, costly furniture worth Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for ‘Adapaduchu Laanchanalu’. Though initially her parents expressed their inability they had no option but to accede to the said demand as the marriage was made public. After negotiations her in laws agreed to receive Rs.5,00,000/- dowry in cash, Rs.75,000/- in cash as Adapaduchu Lanchanalu, 10 tolas of gold ornaments to the first accused household silver utensils and articles weighing 1 ½ kgs besides furniture worth about Rs.1,00,000/-. Her parents performed her marriage with an expenditure of Rs.4 lakhs. (ii) She further stated that after the marriage she joined her husband along with her mother in law under one roof at Vijayawada and that the petitioners herein used to visit their house thrice a day and within a couple of days her in laws started harassing her stating that the dowry brought by her is too meagre. The first accused is having all sorts of vices and that he has no job. His educational qualifications are also false. Due to the non fulfilment of demand of dowry, she was put under pressure and torture. After some time she came to know that the first accused did not purchase any flat with his income and in turn he forced her to do job in order to meet his expenses and when she refused to do so, she was beaten black and blue. The first accused is a chronic alcoholic, smoker and having no self means and he is completely dependent on his mother and other in laws. He used to hurt her in the bed room and that he is a sadist and sex pervert. She further stated that when she informed about the sadistic behaviour of the first accused to the first petitioner herein, the first respondent said that she should bear as Pathivratha or else she should die without informing to anybody. She further stated that her husband misused her credit card. (iii) It is further stated that her mother in law sent her along with her husband to her parents house saying that even after the marriage, her son is not reformed and mend his behaviour. During the stay of the first respondent and her husband at her parents house, the first accused behaved high handedly and on one occasion when she asked him to do job, he beat her black and blue. During that time the petitioners used to threaten her over phone from USA to fulfil the needs of the first accused and pay the expected dowry otherwise the first accused will kill her and she cannot do anything as they are powerful and having good contacts with police and political leaders. (iv) It is further stated that on 10.06.2008 the first accused forcibly took Rs.10,000/- from her and left her company. Thereafter all the accused used to threaten her continuously over phone. Several times her parents made attempts through elders, well wishers to convince the accused but they are in vain. Hence she approached the court below and filed the present complaint. 4 Upon recording the sworn statement of the 1st respondent herein, the learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to the police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report and the police concerned registered it as a case in Cr.No.277 of 2008. After due investigation the police filed charge sheet only against the husband (A.1) and the mother-in-law (A.2) only and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.381 of 2009. As the charge sheet was filed only against the husband and mother-in-law, the wife i.e. 1st respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.3032 of 2009 udner section 173(2) Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioners herein and another. The Magistrate, having considered the contents of the said petition and also the arguments advanced on behalf of her dismissed the said petition by his order dated 08.01.2010. The 1st respondent questioned the said order passed by the trial court by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.42 of 2010 and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad while holding that there are some allegations against the petitioners herein and the mediator who were arrayed as A.3, A.4 and A.5 respectively in the complaint and accordingly allowed the said revision petition and directed the trial court to take cognizance of the offence under section 420 of IPC against them and proceed with the case in accordance with the law. The petitioners i.e. A.3 and A.4 assailing the said order dated 13.05.2010 approached this court and filed the present petition. 5 Heard both sides. 6 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage was performed between the first accused and the 1st respondent herein on 20.02.2008 and immediately after the marriage i.e. on 23.02.2008 the first petitioner left the country to join her husband i.e. second petitioner who is in USA. It is his further submission that the second petitioner is out of the country for the last more than four years and he did not even visit the country during the last four years and he did not attend the marriage also and unnecessarily the petitioners are implicated solely on the ground that they are related to the husband i.e. first accused. It is his further submission that the police after through investigation only came to the conclusion that there is no role that can be attributed to the petitioners herein, but the learned Sessions Judge on an erroneous view directed the trial court to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioners herein also. 7 Per contra, the learned counsel for the wife i.e. 1st respondent herein Mr. J.C.Fransis submitted that as per the sworn statement which was recorded by the learned Magistrate there are clear allegations against the petitioners herein and specific overt acts have also been attributed to the petitioners and as such the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge is justified. 8 The facts are not in dispute. Apparently, the police have not chosen to file the charge sheet against the petitioners herein and as such there cannot be anything to know as to the role that has been played by the petitioners herein. In that context, this court looked into the sworn statement of the 1st respondent – wife recorded by the learned Magistrate. From a perusal of the said sworn statement, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners have no role, which can be attributed. The 5th accused, who is not before this court is the one who arranged the marriage between the first accused and the first respondent herein. The only accusation or allegation against the petitioners herein is that “After the engagement ceremony, to the utter surprise of my parents, my husband’s mother i..e N. Jhansi Lakshmi, elder sister Kakarla Sushma and her husband Kakarla Venkata Ragava Khanna made huge demand of dowry for performing marriage i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- 50 tolas of gold ornaments, costly furniture worth Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for ‘Adapaduchu Laanchanalu.” 9 In my considered view on the basis of the said statement, which is very vague and omnibus, it cannot be construed that there was harassment by the petitioners herein also to attract the provisions of either 420 of IPC or Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Except the said bald and vague allegations there is absolutely nothing that can be read from out of the said sworn statement of the wife i.e. 1st respondent herein. Apparently, the petitioners herein are residing in USA and even from the vakalat filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is clear that the said vakalat was attested by Kimbarli Colarusso, Notary Public, State of Texas. This amply establishes that the petitioners are residing in the State of Texas in USA and solely on the basis of the said bald allegations it cannot be construed that they also have committed the said offence punishable under section 498-A or 420 of IPC or under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 10 Hence, this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2010 is not sustainable and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside. 11 In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 13.05.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2010 is set aside. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 27th October 2010 Kvsn