HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6130 of 2008 Date : 16.12.2011 Between : Sunitha & another. …..Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6130 of 2008 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1030 of 2007 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The aforesaid case is registered on the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC. On filing the said complaint before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, it was referred to the Police for investigation, upon which, a case is registered in Crime No.277 of 2007 on the file of Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad and final report is filed against the petitioners and two others for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC. The accused No.1 in the aforesaid case is the husband of the de facto complainant and accused No.2 is her mother-in-law and the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.3 and 4, are her sisters-in-law. The 2nd respondent, in her complaint, has stated that she was married to Sri Prashant Moses (A-1), a resident of New Boiguda, Secunderabad on 27th of December 2000 as per the Christian customs in the presence of their family members and that prior to the marriage, her mother-in-law (A-2) and petitioners herein (A-3 and A-4) represented her that her husband is running a successful business in the manufacture of caller IDs and electronic goods like currency detecting machines and demanded a dowry of Rs.3,50,000/- from her parents towards marriage expenses and also demanded valuable gifts. It is stated that although her parents are very poor, they have managed to pool up money by borrowing from the friends and relatives with a fond hope that she would lead a comfortable and happy married life. In her complaint, it is alleged by the complainant that subsequently, she came to know that her husband is a school drop out and all his claims of being successful businessman dealing in electronic goods, is false and that she was cheated by all the accused by misrepresenting and misleading her. It is stated that her husband is in the habit of simply wasting time by roaming like a vagabond and is a habitual drunkard. In the complaint, it is stated that from the day of her marriage with accused No.1, her mother-in-law i.e. accused No.2 started harassing her for additional dowry and the petitioners herein used to constantly mount pressure on her by using filthy language, demanding her to give the salary amount to her mother-in-law. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 23rd of March 2002, when she was in the advanced stage of pregnancy, she requested her husband to engage a servant maid, but the petitioners herein reacted very violently, saying that her parents have not given sufficient money to engage a maid servant. When the aforesaid complaint was referred to the Police, matter was investigated into and final report is filed by examining the complaint, her parents and other witnesses. The final report is filed with an allegation that LW-1 was married with accused No.1 on 27th of December 2000 as per Christian rights and at the time of marriage, they have given an impression that accused No.1 was a successful businessman. It is stated that at the time of marriage, valuable gifts were given to the accused. It is alleged that after marriage, LW-1 realised that accused No.1 is a school drop out and is a drunkard. It is also alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 were harassing the complainant for bringing additional dowry and after paying additional dowry on 23.09.2002, all the accused were happy for some time, and thereafter, again, they started harassing her. Precisely, so far as petitioners herein are concerned, it is alleged in the complaint that they were harassing the complainant by pressurising her to hand over her salary amount to accused No.2, who is her mother-in-law. In this criminal petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioners that the allegations made against the petitioners herein are vague and no case is made out to proceed with trial for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners are married and are employed as Staff Nurse and Lecturer and only to harass them, a false complaint is filed. It is further submitted that when the complainant had voluntarily left the matrimonial house on 03.05.2004, a legal notice dated 14.05.2007, was issued on behalf of accused No.1 and thereafter, the present complaint is filed nearly after three years of leaving the house of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted that in view of the vague allegations, the prosecution launched against the petitioners is gross abuse of the process of Court. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2426 of 2008, dated 24.06.2010, and also on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Vrat Singh and others Vs. Shyam Ji Sahai[1]. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 that there is continuous harassment for dowry by accused Nos.1 and 2 along with the petitioners herein, and in view of the final report filed, it is a case for trial and no grounds are made out for questioning the proceedings at this stage. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent that though the petitioners were married, they were spending their time in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and were pressurizing the complainant along with accused Nos.1 and 2, to bring additional dowry and were also responsible for the offences alleged against them. It is submitted by learned counsel that the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is a continuous one having criminal nature of allegation, as such, it cannot be said that there is any delay on the part of complainant for filing such complaint against the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have also perused the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent-complainant, final report filed by the Police and also the other material placed on record by the learned counsel along with the criminal petition. A perusal of the final report shows that though there are certain allegations against the petitioners, the said allegations are vague and no specific instances are alleged against them. While it is true that so far as accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, specific allegations are made to the effect that they were harassing the complainant to bring additional dowry, but so far as petitioners herein are concerned, except the allegation of pressurizing the complainant to part with her salary amount and mis- representing about accused No.1 at the time of her marriage, there are no specific allegations against them. Although it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that the petitioners, who are accused Nos.3 and 4, were spending their time only in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and harassing the complainant, it is to be noticed that they are employed as a Staff Nurse and Lecturer. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has placed on record additional material paper, saying that petitioners herein used to visit the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 frequently, but it is to be noticed that the said additional material paper placed before this Court is the extract of cross-examination of PW-2 in O.P.No.14 of 2010 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad, in which, accused No.2 has deposed, stating that the petitioners were employed and were working as Staff Nurse and Lecturer and they used to drop their children in the morning in her house and pick them up in the evening. Merely because they were employed and were dropping their children at the house of accused No.2, who is the mother of the petitioners, it cannot be said that they were staying in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and pressurizing the complainant all through either for bringing additional dowry or threatening her, so as to attract the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC. In this case, it is to be noticed that the complainant left the company of accused Nos.1 and 2 as early as on 03.05.2004, which is evident from the notice issued on behalf of accused No.1 and the same is also not in dispute. At the same time, it is to be further noticed that the present allegation of harassment by accused Nos.1 and 2 along with the petitioners, is made for the first time in the private complaint filed on 6th August 2007 i.e. nearly after three years of alleged harassment. Apart from the fact that there are no specific allegations so far as the petitioners herein are concerned, who are sisters-in-law of t h e de facto complainant, there is also no valid explanation to explain such abnormal delay on the part of complainant for not lodging complaint against the petitioners, had there been any harassment by them either for dowry or on any other count. In the judgment in the case of Priya Vrat Singh (1 supra), when there was a delay of two years in complaining about the harassment for dowry, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of valid explanation to explain such delay, complaint is liable to be quashed. Even a learned Single Judge of this Court in the order in Criminal Petition No.2426 of 2008, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and others[2], allowed the said criminal petition by quashing the proceedings. In the judgment referred above (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the object of Section 498-A IPC is to prevent dowry menace, but the said provision is being mis-used quite often by falsely implicating the relatives of the husband of the de facto complainant with a view to harass them. In the aforesaid judgment, it is also held that where there is no specific allegation containing overt acts committed by each of the accused, constituting the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the First Information Report as well as the charge sheet are liable to be quashed. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, except the sweeping and general allegations, there is no specific overt act against the petitioners herein. It is to be noticed that the petitioners are employees and are working as Staff Nurse and a Lecturer, therefore, in the absence of specific allegations against them, and taking into account the unexplained delay on the part of complainant for not filing such complaint even after leaving the matrimonial house of the accused, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, to prevent the mis-carriage of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1030 of 2007 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are quashed insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th December 2011 ajr [1] 2008 CRI.L.J. 4367 [2] AIR 2005 SC 3100