JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These two petitions are filed by the accused Nos.1,2,4 to 6, 8 and 9 (Al, A2, A4 to A6, A8 and A9) under Section 482 Cr.P.C, for quashing proceedings in CC No.2077 of 2002 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, (East and North), Ranga Reddy District relating to offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.
(2.)The 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant is wife of Al. A2 is father of Al. A4 to A6 are sisters of Al. A8 is husband of A6. A9 is husband of A7. A7 is another sister of Al. A3 is mother of Al. It is stated that A3 and A7 are no more. A4 is an Advocate. A5 and A6 are working as teachers. A9 is in Government service. Marriage of Al with the 2nd respondent took place on 20.8.1998.
It is alleged in the charge-sheet that for about one month the 2nd respondent was looked after well by Al and that thereafter Al started harassing the 2nd respondent for the sake of additional dowry and registration of flat on instigation of A2 to A9. Al and 2nd respondent went to United State of America in June, 2000. It is alleged during her stay at U.S.A also the 2nd respondent was harassed by Al physically and mentally on instigation of A2 to A9. Both of them returned to India in June, 2001 and subsequently Al alone went to U.S.A and came back in December, 2001. It is further alleged that A1 to A9 again subjected the 2nd respondent to physical and mental torture for want of additional dowry and that on 24.12.2001 they tried to kill her by pouring kerosene, but the 2nd respondent managed to escape and took shelter with her parents.
It is contended by the petitioner's Counsel that omnibus allegations were made against Al to A9 and no specific allegations are made against each of the accused separately. No doubt allegations of physical and mental cruelty against A2 to A9 are omnibus in nature, to the effect that they were instigating Al to harass the 2nd respondent. The alleged incident dated 24.12.2001 is also equally omnibus in nature. Apart from the said general allegations in the charge-sheet, in First Information Report, the 2nd respondent made specific allegations of abusing by her father-in-law and mother-in-law specifically for the sake of additional dowry and registration of flat. It may be noted at this stage itself that except A4 who happened to be un-married sister of Al, A5 to A9 were not residing with Al to A3. A5 to A9 who are married sisters and brother-in-law of Al were living separately at different places. There are no allegations against A4 to A9 specifically. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that A4 to A6, AS and A9 were implicated in this case even though they have no specific participation in that offence against the 2nd respondent. It is nothing short of abuse of process of law.
(3.)It is contended by the petitioner's Counsel that AI pronounced triple 'talaq' to the 2nd respondent as per Mohammed Law and communicated the same to 2nd respondent and that therefore, the present case cannot be allowed to be proceeded with because of termination of marital relationship between Al and the 2nd respondent as husband and wife. Reliance was placed on Syed Hyder Hussain v. State of A.P., 2002 1 ALD(Cri) 339, of this Court on this aspect. In that reported decision, the husband pronounced 'Talaq' on 9.4.1997 and it was communicated to the police on 15.4.1997 along with divorce certificate issued by the A.P. Wakf Board. Allegations in the charge-sheet in that case was that there was demand for dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- on 28.4.1997. Counsel appearing for the wife in that case contended that even after the so-called divorce, the parties were residing under the same roof as husband and wife and therefore, Section 498A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are attracted. This Court while repelling the said contention held that in 'Shias' after the husband divorced his wife by pronouncing triple 'talaq', he is prevented from marrying the same woman again and therefore, provisions of Section 498A IPC and that of the Dowry Prohibition Act do not apply. This decision has absolutely no application to facts of the present case.
In the case on hand, the alleged divorce was on 1.7.2001. Physical and mental harassment for the sake of additional dowry and registration of flat is stated to have taken place from September, 1998 onwards. If the alleged divorce dated 24.12.2001 is true and valid, then, at best, the alleged incident dated 24.12.2001 may not be taken into account in this case. On the other hand, this Court in Aid. Yousuf v. State of A.P., 2005 1 ALD(Cri) 15, held that matrimonial offences committed prior to 'talaq' are not wiped out by reason of pronouncing of 'talaq'. This Court observed:
"Thus, the incidents of ill-treatment and harassment for dowry by the petitioners of the second respondent, are long prior to the first respondent pronouncing triple talaq and obtaining a divorce certificate. It should be kept in view that divorce is not a panacea of matrimonial offences. Therefore, merely because the husband divorces his wife marital offences committed by him prior to the divorce would not get wiped out. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in Syed Hyder Hussains case , is held that by divorcing the wife, husband would be absolved of the offence under Section 498-A IPC committed prior to the divorce."
The husband viz., A1 cannot unilaterally absolve himself of marital offences committed by him and by his family members by subsequently pronouncing 'talaq* to the wife.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.