Dasari Kurminaidu v. The State Of A.P. Rep By Its P.P.

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL PETITION No.5824 OF 2015 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.228 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 354 and 323 r/w 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 to A.3, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-de facto complainant, apart from perusing the material on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 would submit that the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 are innocent persons and falsely implicated in this case; the 3rd respondent-de facto complainant after first marriage, got married the petitioner-A.1; there is no dowry harassment as alleged by the de facto complainant; the de facto complainant is in the habit of filing false cases; similarly, she filed a false complaint against the earlier husband and the said case was ended in acquittal; the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 did not harass the de facto complainant after she begetting a baby girl, the same is invented for the purpose of this case; the petitioner-A.1 had booked the return ticket to the de facto complainant on 07.07.2012, in spite of that she did not join the petitioner-A.1; the de facto complainant came up with false allegations; and ultimately, prayed to allow the application.

4.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of relief sought for by the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 stating that there are no circumstances to consider their request.

5.

Learned counsel for appearing for the 3rd respondent-de facto complainant would submit that earlier marriage of the de facto complainant was disclosed with the petitioner-A.1; after that only, the marriage of the de facto complainant with A.1 was performed; the de facto complainant having obtained divorce from the competent Court, performed the second marriage with the petitioner-A.1; lot of dowry has been given to the petitioner-A.1; thereafter, she was harassed by the petitioners demanding additional dowry; and there are no circumstances to allow the application.

6.

In view of the contentions putforth by both sides, the point for determination is, whether the proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 in C.C. No.228 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, can be quashed?

7.

It is urged before this Court that the de facto complainant has not mentioned her first marriage either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. The point for determination is, whether the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 caused mental and physical torture to the de facto complainant and demanded additional dowry are relevant factors to take into consideration in this application. Further it is contended on behalf of the 3rd respondentde facto complainant that having obtained divorce from a competent Court and informing the same to the petitioners, marriage of the de facto complainant was performed with the petitioner-A.1. Under these circumstances, even it is assuming for a while that the de facto

complainant did not disclose her first marriage to the petitioners-A.1 to A.3, it cannot be a ground to quash this application. It can be a ground to seek divorce by the parties to the litigation. There is record to show that the marriage of the de facto complainant with the petitioner-A.1 was performed on 08.04.2010 at Sri Tirupati Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam at Piridi village, Bobbili Mandal, Vizianagaram District as per the customs of their community. There are allegations of the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 demanding and taking Rs.15,00,000/-, Acs.2-00 cents of agricultural land, a house and plot, etc., for the marriage between the parties to the litigation.

Thereafter, there is record to show that both the parties lived amicably for some time and few days thereafter, the de facto complainant was mentally and physically harassed by the petitioners-A.1 to A.3, when she begot a baby girl on 06.05.2011. The allegations are also that when the parents of the de facto complainant did not give additional dowry as demanded by the petitioners, she was tortured and harassed mentally and physically. There are allegations of harassment meted out at Hyderabad and also at different places. The specific allegation against the petitioner-A.1 in harassing the de facto complainant to sell the property given to her by her parents in the marriage and hand over the sale consideration to him. There are also allegations of suspecting the fidelity of the de facto complainant.

The de facto complainant was also threatened. There was an effort by the elders to settle the dispute between the parties and it was not materialized. There are specific allegations against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 that on 06.03.2015, they went to the parental house of the de facto complainant situated at Kakinada, demanded her to sign some documents to sell the property standing in her name. There are also so many other allegations against all the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 constituting the offences under Sections 498-A, 354 and 323 r/w 34 I.P.C.

Dowry Prohibition Act. Mere non-disclosure of the first marriage cannot be a ground as contended. The allegations leveled against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 are required to be determined in full fledged trial. There are no grounds to allow this petition.

8.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 20th February, 2018 siva