HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.5627 AND 8646 OF 2008 Date: 01-04-2011 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5627 OF 2008 Between: T. Shoba @ Shoba Rani and another --- Petitioners/ A-4 & A-5. And Nagamani Yalamaddi and The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondents. CRIMINAL PETITION No.8646 OF 2008 Between: Gogineni Jayalaxmi. --- Petitioner/ A-2. And Nagamani Yalamaddi and The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.5627 AND 8646 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition 5627 of 2008 is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 and Criminal Petition 8646 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner/ Accused No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.134 of 2008, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Magistrate’). 2. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The accused 4 and 5 (A-4 and A-5) are the married sisters of the first accused i.e. husband of the de-facto complainant and the second accused is the mother of the first accused. The de-facto complainant married the first accused on 21-03-2003 at Balaji Nagar, Khammam, and at the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry and articles to the first accused and immediately the marriage was consummated and during their marital life they begot a male child on 13-05-2008 and she went to U.S.A. along with the first accused and on 11-05-2007 she went to her parents house in India and then went to the house of her in laws house at Nellore where the first accused along with his parents i.e. A-2 and A-3 and his sisters i.e. A-4 and A-5 demanded the de-facto complainant to bring additional dowry from her parents and necked her out from their house and thereafter she and her parents got conducted panchayati in the presence of elders and then her father paid the agreed additional dowry amount of Rs.2,30,000/- to the accused but not satisfied with the same the accused continued to harass her mentally and physically. 4. Learned counsel for the accused 4 and 5 contents they who are the married sisters of the first accused are living separately along with their families at Chennai and Hyderabad respectively, and the second accused who is the mother-in-law of the de-facto complainant has been living at Nelluru and there was no occasion for them to harass the de-facto complainant as the marriage was performed on 21- 03-2003 and thereafter within a short span of time, the de-facto complainant went to U.S.A. and stayed there from August 2003 to 11- 05-2008. Learned counsel for the accused further submits that the de- facto complainant being a highly educated woman, having completed her M.Sc., Bio-chemistry, would not have kept quiet for a period of more than 4 years, if she was harassed for payment of additional dowry by the in laws, further the Supreme Court in cretena of decisions has held that there is gross misuse of the provisions of Section 498-A of I.P.C. and the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Courts have to properly take care of the situation within the existing frame work and innocent persons should be protected from the misuse of the powers vested under those provisions. 5. It is not the prosecution claim that till 11-05-2007 any demand was made by the petitioners/accused. Going through the record it is clear that there are no allegations of demanding the de-facto complainant to pay the additional dowry subsequent to the marriage i.e., from 21-03-2003 till 11-05-2007 on which date according to her she went to the house of her parents-in-law and then the accused demanded to bring the additional dowry from her house and necked her out. Therefore, it appears that till the later date there was no harassment of the de-facto complainant for paying the additional dowry. Under those circumstances, it appears very strange and unnatural apparently that suddenly on the later date when she went to the house of her in laws, the accused demanded her to pay the additional dowry and necked her out from the house apparently. 6. Learned counsel for the accused in support of his contentions has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Preeti Gupta and another V. State of Jharkhand and another[1] wherein it is observed : 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 7. Therefore, the circumstances of the case amply provide that a false case was foisted against the Accused 2, 4 and 5 creating some story apparently. 8. The Supreme Court examined how the provisions of Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are being misused by reason of which the matrimonial institution is being effected in the society. In the spirit of the observations made by the Supreme Court, such misuse of the powers under those provisions is to be curbed. It is very easy to fabricate some allegations of demand of dowry and necking out daughter-in-law from matrimonial house, which can not be taken cognizance of unless those allegations are substantiated by supporting material. When, it appears that in this case also the de-facto complainant and her supporters’ misused the provisions, certainly, the criminal proceedings are to be quashed while giving much emphasis to the conditions raised by the learned counsel for the accused. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed quashing the entire proceedings in C.C. No.134 of 2008, on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, in so far as petitioners/Accused 2, 4 and 5 are concerned. _________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDD, J Dated: 01-04-2011. Dsh. [1] (2010) 7 SCC 667