1 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NIZAMABAD.
Present: Smt. Chaitanya Angari,
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) under PCR Act-cum-III
Additional Junior Civil Judge
Nizamabad.
TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
C C. No. 1899 of 2018
BETWEEN:
The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Town- III, Nizamabad District. …PROSECUTION
AND
A1:Nalla Ajay Kumar, S/o.Nalla Satyam Reddy, Age:37 years, Caste:Reddy, Occ:Software Engineer, R/o. New NGOs Colony Nizamabad at present USA. A2:Nalla Satyam Reddy, S/o. Gangareddy, Age:78 years, Caste:Reddy, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.11-1-913 New NGOs Colony Nizamabad. A3:Nalla Pushpavathi, W/o. Satyamreddy, Age:62 years, Caste:Reddy, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.11-1-913 New NGOs Colony Nizamabad. …ACCUSED NOS.1 to 3 *****
This Case is coming on 11.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri.B.Manohar, Counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This case vide CC.No. 1899 of 2018 is transferredto this court from the
Learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad District
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
2 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad vide O.M Dis.No. 1357/P.R.No.137/2023/2024, Dt:20.03.2024.
2. This case is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Town-III against
Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.99 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act [hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC' in short for sake of brevity].
3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 08.05.2018 at 13:00 hours complainant/Nalla Pragna, came to PS and lodged a petition in which she stated that her marriage was performed with Nalla Ajay
Kumar on 12.03.2011 at Vijayalaxmı Gardens Vinayaknagar Nizamabad and was registered on 18.03.2011. At the time of marriage on the demand of the parents of her husband i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3, her father was forced to pay Rs. 8,00,000 as dowry and presented 30 tulas of gold in the form of jewelry and one and half KG of silver. Thereafter as her husband was employed in USA he left and she lived for one month with her parents-in-law to look after her father-in-law who underwent Eye surgery. During her stay, her in-laws demanded for additional dowry and after two months she joined with Accused No.1 in USA. They lived together in Delaware for one and half year and during that period her husband behavior was peculiar, adamant and sadistic and he quarreled and harassed her on trivial issues. He used to lock her up in a room with no food for two days if he gets angry. She informed about her husband arrogant behavior to her in-laws but they always supported him. Her
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
3 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
husband forced her to take up job and as per his wish she got work visa and got job in Los Angeles and stayed for six months and again moved to
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania for her new job and they both lived together.
Her husband used to take away all her salary and tortured her physically and mentally to sign the blank cheques and transfer her salary amount to his account likewise she transferred $ 90,000/- over a period of two and half years to the account of her husband. During their wedlock she blessed with a baby boy on 10.06.2014 and her parents went to USA in the month of May,2014 to assist her in her delivery, but the baby had to undergone an abdominal surgery. Her husband used to quarrel with her parents on trivial issues and harassed them mentally and they left in
October 2014.
In the month of November 2014 her in-laws came to USA and they harassed her verbally, for one or other reason and started demanding her to transfer all her money to her husband's account and demanded her parents to give additional dowry to invest in real estate. Her husband and in-laws used to threaten her that they will give divorce if she don't oblige to their demands. As she wanted to save marriage and in welfare of her son, her parents and she obliged to their demands and transferred
Rs.25,000/- in the month of January 2015 and her parents deposited Rs.14 lakhsintheaccountofherfather-in-lawbearing
A/c.No.0439104000035440 in IDBI Bank Nizamabad on 14 March 2015.
Her husband used to transfer all her money to his father's bank account in
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
4 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
India. Her in-laws left to India in April 2015 and she visited India in the month of August 2015 and again her in-laws started harassed for
additional dowry of Rs.15 lakhs and threatened that their son will give
divorce to her otherwise, so her parents gave Rs.9.5 lakhs cash through
Narotham Reddy who is cousin of her father. In the month of September 2015 she returned to USA accompanied by her parents-in-law. Again they along with her husband started harassing her verbally and demanding her to handover all her salary to them and she refused to give as they were not fulfilling her and her son's basic requirements. Further she added that her son was detected with some abnormality in his right leg and left hand and needed treatment. Her husband and parents-in-law prevented her from seeing a doctor in USA stated that it would cost more in the USA and insisted that she took her son to India for treatment. Forcefully she along with her child returned to India in April 2018. Her son was diagnosed with
Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Ponto cerebella Hyperplasia was treated at Lotus hospital and Rainbow Hospital at Hyderabad. He underwent
Speech Therapy, Physical therapy and occupational therapy for sensory issues. Her in-laws initially used to visit her son but later stopped visiting them and her husband and in-laws did not send single paisa for his treatment. When she spoke to her husband he arrogantly asked her to leave the child and come to USA and start working to meet the expenses for treatment. To meet the expenses and not to burden her parents financially she left her child with her parents for treatment and went to
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
5 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
USA and procured job in Pennsylvania to support her son's treatment. In spite of her frequent calls also her husband started ignoring her.
Eventually she received Divorce Notice from her husband in USA. Having no emotional support she returned to India on 12.04.2017 and when she went to her in-laws place they did not allow her into the house. As such she with initiation of elders and local police stayed with her parents-in- law. They assured them of compromising with her husband regarding divorce and dragged the issue to kill the time and family court at
Delaware granted him exparte divorce when she is in India. Neither her husband nor her in-laws are responding to her calls and allowing her to stay with them. She filed restitution of conjugal Rights case (RCR
FCOP/120021/2018) against her husband, DVC and also civil suits against them so as to restrain them to alienate their properties.
4. Basing on the contents of the report given by LW1/Nalla Pragna,
LW10/SI of police, registered a case in Cr.No.99 of 2018 U/sec.498-A of
IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. During the course of investigating he examined and recorded the statements of LW1/Nalla Pragna, LW2/Baddam Madhusudhan Reddy and
LW3/Baddam Namratha. Later, on 15.05.2018 LW10 secured the presence of LW4/Baddam Muralidhar Reddy and LW5/Laxmapur Narayana Reddy and recorded their statements. Later, on 18.05.2018 LW10 also secured the presence of LW6/Gaddam Rithesh Reddy and LW7/Proddutur
Narotham Reddy who are relatives of the complainant and recorded their
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
6 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
statements. Later LW10 also visited Scene of offence and secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW8/Dubbaka Naveen and LW9/Pitani
Ramu and in their presence he conducted Scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch in Crime Detail Form.
6. Later on 19.10.2018 accused Nos.2 and 3 came to PS and surrendered themselves before LW10 and voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence along with accused No.1 who is in USA. As such LW10 issued them a notice u/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation
LW10 filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3.
7. On the receipt of the charge sheet, the case was taken cognizance for the offence under Secs.498-A of IPC, Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused Nos.1 to 3. On their appearance copies of case documents were furnished to them under Sec.207 Cr.P.C and they were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and a charge under Secs.498-A of IPC,
Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Accused Nos.1 to 3 have been framed, read over and explained to them in their language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. During course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 on its behalf. Ex.D1 to D12 were marked on behalf of accused during the cross examination of PW1.
The evidence of LW4/Baddam Muralidhar Reddy has been given up by the learned APPO. The evidence of LW9/Pitani Ramu was closed on the report filed by Police concerned.
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
7 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
9. After closure of prosecution side evidence, Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which Accused
Nos.1 to 3 denied the same and reported that they do not have defence evidence on their behalf.
10. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the Accused persons.
10(i). The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor through written arguments submitted that PW1 stayed back to attend accused Nos.2 and 3 who underwent eye surgery. During the stay of the PW1 with the accused
Nos.2 and 3 demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- stating that the accused got less dowry. The Ex.P12 reflects the same conversation of the dowry amount between the accused No.2 and PW1. It clearly establishes the demand and payment for the dowry. The defense did not deny the pen drive conversation nor did they went for any Forensic test to prove that the said voice does not belong to the accused. The defence only has raised the source of the Ex.P12. PW1 has proved the source of Ex.P12.
The amount sent by the accused No.1 to the accused No.2 is reflected in the Ex.P11 which proves that the amount taken from the PW1 was sent to the accused No.2. Ex.P3 is crucial document to prove that the accused
No.1 has taken amount from the PW1 and there is no reason or denial for the same apart from attesting signature why did accused No.1 take such huge amount from PW1, Ex.P4 and 5 reflects the payments made by PW1.
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
8 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
Accused No.1 did not file any complaint in USA against the PW1 for taking away child forcibly. It is further argued that PW1 was forced by the accused No.1 to take up job and as per his wish PW1 got work visa approved and got job in Los Angeles and stayed for six months and again moved to Harrisburg, Pennylvania for new job and the PW1 and the accused both lived together. The accused used to take away the salary of the PW1 and torture PW1 physically and mentally to sign the blank cheque and transfer the salary amount of the PW1 to his account, as such PW transferred $ 90,000/-(Ninety thousand dollars) over a period of two and half years.
10(ii). That the parents of the PW1 obliged to the demands of accused and transferred $ 25,000/- in the month of January 2015 and the PW1 parents deposited Rs.14 lakhs in the account of parents of accused No.1 bearing account No.0439104000035440 in IDBI Bank, Nizamabad on 14.03.2015. Further the demand of dowry and payment was proved by
PW2 to 6. The alleged incident has occurred in close door and the neighbors need not to be examined in 498-A of IPC cases. The father and other witness are sufficient to prove the case of Pw1 beyond reasonable doubts. It is further contended that it is not mandatory to seek permission from central government in filing FIR under Sec. 498-A IPC case against a person residing in other country. The document filed by prosecution and the statement of the witness are corroborating the version of the Pw1 to the extent of harassment by accused Nos.1 to 3 and willful neglecting the
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
9 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
Pw1 and her child, by which they harassed PW-1 mentally. Ex.P1 to
Ex.P12 reflects the version of prosecution to prove the case.
10(iii). On the other hand the Learned counsel for the accused argued that, as per Section 188 of Cr.P.C since all the allegations against accused
No.1 are said to have occurred in USA the prior permission of Central
Government is required, since the accused No.1 did not visit India till 28.11.2022 to prosecute him. Since the investigating agency has not obtained any such permission, the case against accused No.1 is not maintainable. He also argued that this is a counter case to the divorce obtained by the accused No.1 in USA on 09.05.2017. Adding to this, this case is filed after two years of separation and after one year of obtaining divorce by the accused No.1, but no explanation was appended to it and all the allegations are vague and omnibus without any specific dates, time, place, nature and details of harassment. It is the further argument of learned counsel that PW1 has filed total six cases over a period of nine months including this case and also filed Restitution of Conjugal Rights prior to three months of filing of this case, which shows that she filed cases to extract the money from the accused and if PW1 was really a victim of domestic violence she would not have visited house of accused
Nos.2 and 3. PW4 to PW6 are the circumstantial witnesses and whose evidence is a hear-say evidence. PW2 and PW3 who had been in USA for a short period but they did not testify about the harassment of PW1. During the cross-examination of PW1 she admitted Ex.D2 to Ex.D12 and which
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
10 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
proves that accused No.1 took care of all the expenses and even helped the parents of PW1. During the cross-examination of PW2 and PW3 they admitted that on 20.09.2017 they necked out accused Nos.2 and 3 from their house and since then they have been staying at Lalana old age home, Ankapur Village, Armoor Mandal and Ex.D13 proves the same. PW7 the investigating officer admitted that no independent witnesses were examined and have not filed any documents to show that accused have demanded additional dowry of Rs.9,50,000/-. The Learned counsel for the accused also contended that there is no corroboration among the testimonies of PW2 to PW6 and they all are the relatives of PW1 thereby they are the interested witnesses to the outcome of the case. He further argued that PW1 to PW3 harassed the accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the old aged persons in the absence of accused No.1 by trespassing into their house and necked out them from their house, due to which they had to took the shelter at Lalana oldage home, Armoor. He also argued that, PW- 1 filed as many as cases in India only after she received a Notice in
Divorce case filed by Accused No. 1 in USA. Hence the overall acts of PW1 and his family and also the cases filed by her clearly proved that, by hook or crook PW1 tried to extract money from the accused persons and also wanted to harass them. To support his arguments, he placed reliance on
(i).Abhishek Vs.The State of Madhya Pradesh,
(ii). Sunil Gangadhar Kadam and Others Vs. Jayashri Sunil Kadam and Anr,
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
11 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
(iii). Amanulla Khan Vs.Sanjeena Vahab,
(iv). Sartaj Khan Vs.State of Uttarakhand,
(v). Crl.MP No.2379 of 2024 Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and
ANR.
(vi). R.P Kapur Vs.State of Punjab in AIR 1960 SC 866 and in case
of State of AP. Vs. Vangaveeti Nagaiah in (2009) 12 SCC 466: AIR
2009 SC 2646,
(vii). Preethi Gupa Vs.State of Jharkhand,
(viii). Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar, (Crl.MP No.1277 of 2014,
dated 02.07.2014).
(ix). Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs.State of U.P.
(x). Kaslefsky Vs.Kaslefsky, (1950) 2 AII ER 398,
(xi). Mahmood & Ors. Vs.State of U.P & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950,
(xii). Manju Ram Kalita Vs.State of Assam,
(xiii). Mahalakshmi Vs. The State of Karnataka,
(xiv). Suman Mishra & Ors., Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(xv). Digambar Vs. The State of Maharashtra,
(xvi). Neha Vs. Vibhor Garg in Cr.Nos.1616 of 2020(O & M, and Cr.No.2538 of 2020(O & M).
11.Perused the record.
12.Now the point for my determination is ‘Whether the prosecution has proved and established guilt of the
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charges under Secs.498-A of IPC,
Secs.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt’ ?
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
12 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
13. P O I N T:
13(i). PW1 (Nalla Pragna) has deposed that on 12.03.2011 she got marry with the accused No.1 at Vinayak Gardens Nizamabad and the same was registered at Registrar office at Nizamabad on 18.03.2011. At the time of marriage they presented dowry of Rs.8,00,000/- and 30 tulas of gold and 1½ kg silver. At the time of Marriage the accused No.1 was working in
USA. After marriage herself along with the accused Nos.1 to 3 stayed together for 2 months in Nizamabad as well as in Hyderabad out of which the accused No.1 stayed only for 1 to 1 and 1/2 month and left to USA. In the meantime the accused No.2 underwent cataract surgery at Harsha
Eye Hospital Nizamabad and her own sisters marriage also got settled and she got married in the month of June 2011. in the meantime the accused
Nos.2 and 3 demanded her for additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-.
Thereafter in the same month she left to USA and joined the company of the accused No.1. They stayed happily there for a period of 1 year. In the meantime the accused No.1 used to get angry on petty issues and used to behave dominantly. The accused No.1 also used to keep her in a room and not give her food and you also used to stay alone in another room without talking to her. She used to informed the same to her in laws but they used to support the accused No.1 and consoled her by stating that she has to adjust with their mentality and stay with the accused. When she informed the same to her parents they were inquired with the accused Nos. 2 and A3 where the accused Nos.2 and 3 stated the same to
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
13 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
her parents. In the meantime the accused No.1 used to force her to do job outside as his salary will not be enough to run the family as she used to work while she was in India. Thereafter she applied for work visa and got the same. Thereafter she secured Job at Los angels and stayed there alone for Six months. Due to his job he had to stay separately as the accused No.1 was not allowed to work from Home. After six months she secured job at Harrisburg Pennsylvania and they stayed together.
Thereafter as she was getting salary the accused demanded to deposit all her salary to his account and also the accused used to make her sign on blank cheque so that the amount from her salary account gets credited to the accused No.1. Over a period of 2½ years she transferred total amount of US$90.000 to account of the accused No.1. He also sent some of the amount to her Indian Bank accounts. Initially the accused No.1 also help her parents to buy a house in India as he was also taking her salary.
Thereafter she got conceived in October 2013 and her parents came to visit her and assist her during her delivery i.e., on May 2014. Thereafter on 10.06.2014 she was blessed with a male child and thereafter the accused had to undergo a minor surgery. In the meantime the accused
No.1 started quarreling with her parents for petty issues and later on her parents left USA in the month of October 2014 due to the accused No.1’s harassment. The accused No.1 used to state that the accused would not stay in the house if her parents stay in the same house. Later in
November 2014 her in laws came to US and they also started harassing
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
14 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
her just like the accused No.1 and demanded to give all her salary to the accused No.1. Unable to bear with his harassment in the month of January 2015 she gave a cheque of US$25,000 to the accused No.2 to give it to the accused No.1 in order to settle the disputes between them. Later on the accused Nos.2 and 3 started demanding to return back the amount which was paid by the accused No.1 to her parents to buy a house. The accused were also threatened her that the accused would give divorce to her if at all she does not transfer any of her salary to the account of the accused No.1. Further the accused used to blame her for everything without her mistake and used to force her to accept such blame.
Thereafter on 14.03.2015 her parents transferred an amount of
Rs.14,00,000/- to the account of the accused No.2 which was in the IDBI
Bank her in-laws forcibly made her parents to transfer such amount. Later on her in laws left to India in the month of April 2015. Thereafter her husband stopped visiting her work place completely and demanded that she has to go to India and accept all her mistakes completely before the accused No.2 and 3 and come back with them and then only the accused will stay with her. In the month of August 2015 she came back to India and she went to her in laws where her in laws again started demanding
additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/-. The said issue was taken before the
elders where the accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded to return back the amount which was given by the accused No.1 to help her parents to buy a house. The said amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was included in the above
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
15 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
stated fact. Thereafter her parents gave a cash of Rs.9.50,000/- to the accused No.2 in the presence of LW4/Baddam Muralidhar Reddy,
LW5/Laxmapur Narayana Reddy, LW6/Gaddam Rithesh Reddy and
LW7/Proddutur Narotham Reddy. Thereafter the accused No.2 assured that the accused would come to US and settle the dispute between her and accused No.1 and accordingly in the month of November 2015 the accused Nos.2 and 3 took her to USA along with them and the accused all stayed together for few days and again the accused started demanding her salary amount to transfer it to the account of the accused No.1. But this time she refused to give her salary as the accused No.1 was not nice to her and the accused were not fulfilling her needs. In the meantime they found that her son has got some health issues but the accused Nos.1 to 3 did not care about it and stated that her son need not be taken to
Hospital as his speech is improving and unnecessarily referring him to
Hospital would cost more money. Later on for the above said reason her in laws and the accused No.1 forced her to come back to India for the sake of her child and so that the accused would get exposed to more people but she wanted to stay back in US as her son will get better treatment in US but the accused did not listen to her and sent her back to
India in the month of April 2016. Due to the torture she had to move to
India. After arriving to India she went to her in laws house and she took her child to the Lotus Hospital and Rainbow Hospital and he was diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. She then made her child
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
16 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
undergo Speech Therapy and Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy for sensory issues. She then took him to Rainbow Children Hospital where he was diagnosed with Pontocerebellar Hypoplasia. Thereafter her in laws visited her child for few months and the accused stopped visiting her child. The accused No.1 also did not care about her child. The accused also did not give any single penny for her son’s medical expenses. She then insisted the accused No.1 that she will come back to USA for her son’s treatment so that they can stay together but the accused No.1 refused her and asked her to take care of her son and come back to US on her own visa. Thereafter she went to US on her own to meet the medical expenses of her son by leaving her son in India as he was under treatment in India. Thereafter the accused No.1 started blaming her for leaving her son in India and coming back to US stating that she does not have any right to leave her son in India. She stayed there for 4 months and in the meantime she tried to contact the accused No.1 but the accused No.1 did not respond. This happened while she was in India.
Thereafter in the month of April 2017 she. received Divorce Notice from the accused No.1. As she was not having any moral support she returned back to India on 12.04.2017. She then visited her in laws house along with
LW4/Baddam Muralidhar Reddy and LW5/Laxmapur Narayana Reddy and informed about the same where the accused No.2 assured that the accused would talk with accused No.1, the accused No.1 about the said issue as he did not know about the said issue and made her stay with the
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
17 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
accused. After some days when she went out and came back she found the house locked and she called the accused No.2 where he stated that they went out and will come back after sometime. She waited for 2 hours and again she made a phone call the accused No.2 stated that he would not say where they and they were no where related to her and she was not his daughter in law anymore. She then left from that place and upon her inquiry she got to know that the accused No.1 obtained an exparte decree for Divorce in USA. Later with the help of police support and her elders she stayed at her in laws house as their marriage was registered in
India and the said divorce which was obtained by the accused No.1 in USA was improper. Thereafter she received a notice from an RDO stating that as she and the accused No.1 were not taking proper care of the accused
Nos.2 and 3 and they were entitled to pay a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and she has to go out of the house. Thereafter upon her visit to RDO
Office she explained to him that the accused No.2 had sold the house belonging to her and the accused No.1 under GPA and she does not have any house to stay for which RDO dismissed the complaint. Prior to notice from RDO she already filed a DVC Case before Hon'ble II AJMFC
Nizamabad and RCR before Hon'ble Family Court Nizamabad. She also filed Civil suits against the accused Nos.1 to 3 so that there should be some security to her and her child. As the accused No.2 stated that he will look after the dispute in court and as she has no other way and she had to file this report before III Town PS Nizamabad on 08.05.2018.
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
18 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
13(ii). PW-2(Baddam Madhusudhan Reddy) who is the father of PW1, has deposed that in the year 2011, PW1 marriage was performed with the accused No.1 and they were stayed in India for 2 months. At the time of marriage they presented Rs.8 Lakhs and 30 tulas of gold one and half KG
Silver and house-hold articles to the accused. After that they were went to
USA. At USA the accused used to demand additional amount to PW1.
Upon the demand of the accused PW1 paid all her earnings to the accused No.1. The accused also started harassing PW1 to go to India as their son is not well and send them to India. When PW1 along with their son came to India the accused No.1 never showed interest to show on his son in the hospital. Later they admitted him in the hospital and got treatment. While the treatment is going on PW1 went to USA for sake of money. At that time the accused No.1 filed a divorce case against PW1 in
USA. PW1 stayed at USA for two months. Later she returned to India and the accused No.1 and his parents started harassing PW1 for want of
additional dowry.
13(iii). Pw-3(Baddam Namratha) the mother of PW-1, has deposed that in the year 2011 PW1 marriage was performed with the accused No.1 and they stayed in India for 2 months, few days at Nizamabad and few days at
Hyderabad. At the time of marriage they presented Rs.8 Lakhs and 30 tulas of gold one and half KG Silver and house-hold articles to the accused. After that they went to USA and they stayed happily for 4 years.
During that period PW1 conceived and upon the information of PW1 he
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
19 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
along with PW2 went to USA for PW1’s delivery. They stayed there for two months. During their stay PW1 informed that they were having petty disputes. PW1 and the accused No.1 used to send money to the accused
No.2 to purchase the land at Nizamabad. After 15 days of delivery child got surgery as he was not well at the time of birth. The accused No.1 and
PW1 used to quarrel with each other on petty issues regarding the money, but he does not know the conversation between them. The Accused used to demand additional amount to PW1. Upon the demand of the accused
PW1 paid all her earnings to the accused No.1. The Accused also started harassing PW1 to go to India as their son is not well and send him to
India. When PW1 along with his son came to India the accused No.1 never showed interest to show his son in the hospital. Later they admitted him in the Rainbow hospital and got treatment. While the treatment was going on PW1 went to USA for sake of money. At that time the accused No.1 filed a divorce case against PW1 at USA. PW1 stayed at USA for two months. Later she returned to India and the accused No.1 and their parents started harassing PW1 for want of additional dowry.
13(iv).Pw-4(Laxmapur Narayana Reddy) has deposed that on 12.03.2011
PW1 got marry with the accused No.1 at Nizamabad. At the time of marriage they presented Rs.8,00,000/- net cash as dowry, 30 tulas of gold, 1 and half KG Silver and other house-hold articles. They were lived happily for 1 month. After 1 to 2 months the accused No.1 left to USA.
PW1 stayed with her in-laws at Nizamabad. After 3 months PW1 also went
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
20 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
to USA and joined conjugal society with the accused No.1. In the year 2014 they blessed with a baby boy and he is mentally abnormal. After birth of baby boy her in-laws harassed mentally and physically and harassed for additional dowry. PW2 and PW3 went to USA for PW1’s delivery at that time also the accused No.1 harassed PW1 to PW3 and abused in filthy language. They held a panchayath at Armoor and gave
Rs.14,00,000/- net cash as additional dowry. He acted as elder in above said panchayath. The Accused No.1 denied to allow PW1 to come to USA.
Later the accused No.1 accepted to allow PW1 to USA. They requested the accused No.1 and his family members that PW1 will not go for job due to the ill-health of her son and to take care of him. But the accused persons refused and insisted PW1 to do job. Accordingly PW1 used to went for job and her earnings deposited in the account of the accused No.1. Despite that the accused No.1 parents came to India. The Accused No.1 forcefully sent PW1 to India to get the treatment for their son. Again they held panchayath with the accused No.1’s parents and again they gave
Rs.9,50,000/- on his demand through LW7/Narotham Reddy. The Accused
Nos.2 and 3 locked the door and did not allow PW1.
13(v). Pw.5(Gaddam Rithesh Reddy) has deposed that on 12.03.2011
PW1 got marry with the accused No.1 at Nizamabad. At the time of marriage her parents presented Rs.8,00,000/- net cash as dowry, 30 tulas of gold, 1 and half KG Silver and other house-hold articles. The accused were lived happily for 1 month. After 1 to 2 months the accused No.1 left
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
21 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
to USA. PW1 stayed with her in-laws at Nizamabad. After 3 months PW1 also went to USA and joined conjugal society with the accused No.1. In the year 2014 they were blessed with a baby boy and he is mentally abnormal. After birth of baby boy her in-laws harassed mentally and physically and harassed for additional dowry. PW2 and PW3 went to USA for PW1’s delivery at that time also the accused No.1 harassed PW1 to
PW3 and abused in filthy language. They held a panchayath at Armoor and deposited Rs.14,00,000/- net cash as additional dowry in the account of the accused No.2. He acted as elder above said panchayath. The
Accused No.1 denied to allow PW1 to come to USA. Later the accused
No.1 accepted to allow PW1 to USA. They were requested the accused
No.1 and his family members that PW1 will not go for job due to the ille- health of her son and to take care of him. But they refused and insisted
PW1 to do job. Accordingly PW1 used to went for job and her earnings deposited in the account of the accused No.1. Despite that the accused
No.1 parents came to India. The Accused No.1 forcefully sent PW1 to India to get the treatment for their son. Again they held panchayath with the accused No.1’s parents and again they gave Rs.9,50,000/- on his demand through LW7/Narotham Reddy. The Accused Nos.2 and 3 locked the door and did not allow PW1.
13(vi). Pw.6(Proddutur Narotham Reddy) has deposed that in the year 2011 PW1 got married with the accused No.1 at Nizamabad and during the marriage Rs. 8 lakhs was presented 30 tulas of gold and one and half
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
22 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
KG silver to the accused. After two months PW1 and the accused No.1 went to U.S.A and they blessed with one baby boy in the year 2014 but the boy born with mental abnormality. Due to which disputes arose in between PW1 and the accused No.1 and for several times they pacified the matter and to bare the medical expenses of his son by the accused.
When the parents of the accused No.1 harassed PW1 for Rs. 15 Lakhs,
PW2 deposited Rs.14,50,000/- in the account of the accused No.2. Again they started demand for the additional amount and sent back PW1 to
India. Again they gave Rs.9,50,000/- to the accused No.2 net cash.
13(vii). Pw.7(R.Krishna) SI of Police has deposed that on 08.05.2018 at about 13.00 hours he received Ex.P1 from PW1, basing on the complaint he registered a case vide Cr.No.99 of 2018 U/sec.498-A, Sec.4 of DP Act.
Ex.P13 is FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW3 and on the same day he proceeded to scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of
LW8/Dubbaka Naveen and LW9/Pitani Ramulu. Ex.P14 is scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch while investigation in progress on 15.05.2018 he examined and recorded the statements of PW4 to PW6. On 19.10.2018 at 11.00 A.M the accused No.2 voluntarily came to P.S and surrendered confessed his guilt before him as such he issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice. After completion of investigation he filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3.
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
23 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
14. Coming to the argument of accused i.e., this case is not maintainable since all the allegations against accused No.1 which were raised when he was in USA thereby section 188 of Cr.P.C would apply in this case as the investigating agency did not obtain any prior permission from the Central
Government.
15. However, Section 498-A is a continuing offence and it also appears that, accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing in India and due to the disputes between PW1 and accused No.1 panchayaths were also held in India.
“Cruelty”which is the crux of the offence U/s. 498A of IPC is defined in
Black’s Law Dictionary to mean “The intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp., a human; abusive treatment outrage (Abuse, inhuman, indignity)”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gananatham Patnayak Vs State of ORISSA reported in 2002
SCC (cri) 461 has also laid down the principle as to the expression cruelty includes both physical and psychological/mental cruelty and as it is a continuing offence and some of the allegations raised against the accused Nos.2 and 3 in India only, Section 188 of Cr.P.C does not apply.
16.The main allegation of PW1 is that accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed her for additional dowry and also harassed her to do the job so as to take her salary and despite PW1 transferred her salary to the accused Nos.1 and 2, they neglected to look after the welfare of PW1 and her son who is mentally distortedperson.
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
24 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
17. To prove the same PW1, filed Ex.P2 to Ex.P12, out of which Ex.P3 is cheque leaves dated 24.01.2014, 23.01.2015 and 04.06.2014,Ex.P4 Bank
Statement of PW1 and Ex.P5 to prove rent payment receipts that PW1 transferred amount to the accused No.1. For which the counsel for accused stated that Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are not admissible as they are not authorized by the concerned Bank Authorities and those were printouts which does not supported with the certificate to the effect the it is a printout of such entry or a copy of such printout by the principal accountant or branch manager as per Sec.2A of Banker book Evidence
Act, as such they are not valid documents. Even otherwise they are admissible in evidence, which alone are not proved that, PW1 transferred all her salary to accused No.1. Counsel for accused also elicited during the cross-examination of PW1 to disprove that, there is no harassment on
PW1 to do job in USA, she admitted that even prior to her marriage also she used to do job and out of her interest only she got work VISA in India.
As such in view of the admitted facts by PW1, the defense counsel has successfully impeached the trustworthiness of PW1 to the extent of allegation ofharassment on PW1 to do the job to get the salary of PW1. In addition to this, PW1 also contended that she transferred all her salary to the accused No.1, but Ex.P3(Cheque Leaves) proved that she has drawn cheque in favour of her husband but which itself does not prove that he has got credited that amount and Ex.P5 Bank Statements of PW1 also did not reflect anything to the extent that she deposited her salary to the
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
25 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
accused No.1. Moreover in general, the marital life of a couple share a broad range of responsibilities, encompassing financial management, house hold tasks, emotional and physical support and shared decision making. When there are such responsibilities, mere small disputes between the couple can not be considered as harassment on the part of husband by taking the advantage of penal provision against the husband.
The main allegation of PW1 is that Accused No.1 forced PW1 to do job so as to take her salary, however it is an admitted fact of PW1 that, she changed her jobs at 3 places and if she was really forced by accused No.1 for job, she should have resisted and at least she tried to not to be selected. When everything was going well between them it is not at all a problem to share the financial management and when the things get worse the same can not be taken as advantage by raising the allegations as stated supra. Adding to this EX. P2 to P5 and EX.D1 to D12 on which both the parties are relying proved the same that they both together shared their responsibilities being the wife and husband and lead their marital life happily until the disputes arose.
18. For bringing home the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act., the prosecution has to prove that PW-1 was married to the Accused No.1 and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused No.1 being the husband and accused Nos.2 and 3 being the relatives of Accused
No.1, such cruelty was perpetrated by willful conduct of such a nature as
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
26 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
is likely to drive PW-1 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical or by way of harassment of PW-1 with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
19. On conscientious assessment and discernment of evidence of PWs. 1 to PW6 it could be seen that except making sweeping allegations no co- gent evidence is brought on record in order to establish the cruelty or ha- rassment as defined in explanation to Sec.498-A IPC. Though it was as- serted that all accused harassed her, but there is no persuasive evidence to that effect that PW1 really subjected to harassment and cruelty and there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that the cruelty or harass- ment perpetrated is of willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive PW.1 to commit suicide or that it caused grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of PW.1 and that the ha- rassment was with a view to coerce PW.1 or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by PW.1 or any person related to PW.1 to meet such de- mand. The testimony of PW.1 is not compelling in order to bring home the charge within the four corners of the explanation appended to Sec.498-A
IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Furthermore upon the perusal of the testimonies of PW-1 to PW6 there is no corroboration on material
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
27 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
aspects of the case. Ex P11/Bank Pass book of Accused No.2 and Ex.P11/
Pendrive did not prove any thing to the extent of harassment of PW-1 by
Accused Nos.2 and 3 and Accused No.1 transferred the alleged amount to
Accused No.2. In addition to this there are material improvements and contradictions in the testimony of PW1. Further there is no corroboration in the testimonies of PW2 to PW6. As such it threw a doubt in the mind of the court as to the trustworthiness of PW1 to PW6. To discredit the testi- mony of PW1 to PW6 the accused got marked EX.D1 to D12 during the cross examination of PW-1.
20.The Hon'ble Apex Court between State of A.P. V. M.Madusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582 held that every harassment does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Sec.498-A IPC. For the purpose of Sec.498-A IPC harassment simpliciter is not cruelty and it is only when the harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc that it amounts to cruelty punishable under Sec.498-A IPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.11 of the judgment observed as follows: “11.Thus, providing a new dimension to the concept of "cruelty", clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. postulates that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute "cruelty". Such willful conduct, which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman would also amount to "cruelty". Clause (b) of the Explanation provides that harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, would also constitute "cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. It is plain that as per clause
(b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for the State, is attracted in the instant case, every harassment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-A I.P.C. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
28 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C”.
21.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bhaskar Lal Sharma V.
Monika, (2009) 10 SCC 604 held that the allegations of harassment should be of such a nature and extent so as to coerce the wife to meet any unlawful demand of dowry or any other unlawful conduct on part of the accused of a nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.
22. It is also evident from the record that PW-1 filed this case along with other cases after she received notice in Divorce case in USA. The
Hon’ble Supreme court in Suman Mishra and Others Vs. The State
of Uttarpradesh has held that, the FIR is vexatious and seems to be instituted with an ulterior motive only because the husband preferred a divorce petition in USA and victim has not furnished any information in regard to the date and time of the commission of the alleged offence.
23. It is well settled proposition of law that the prosecution has to prove and establish that the Accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the acts of harassment or cruelty as contemplated in Sec.498-A IPC and such harassment or cruelty must be the cause forcing the wife to commit suicide. Solitary incident or couple of incidents cannot be interpreted to be the sufficient evidence of cruelty or harassment attracting the
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
29 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
ingredients of Sec.498-A IPC unless the ingredients as envisaged in the section about the harassment or cruelty is proved.
24. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the harassment was incessant, persistent and sufficiently grave in nature as is likely to drive the woman to a point of desperation leaving her with no option except to think about suicide. In this case there is no potent material brought on record by the prosecution in proving the fact that there was incessant and persistent harassment or cruelty on PW1 driving her to think that there is no other option for her except to commit suicide. Furthermore, upon the perusal of the Ex.P1 which is in contradiction with the testimony of PW1
before this court.
25. On careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record taking into account the surrounding circumstances and probabilities, no telling evidence wasbrought on record by the prosecution in connecting the accused with the imputed crime. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the charge in criminal trial is always on the shoulders of the prosecution and the standard of proof required in proving the charge against the accused is proof beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, the accused is always entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Since there is no corroboration and improvements in the testimony of PW1 to PW6, and in view of the evidence of Accused, this court can not come to a conclusion that, the prosecution could able to prove the offence against
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
30 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Considering the cumulative circumstances and the evidence I am of the view that the accused are entitled for the acquittal in view of the discussion made by me supra, as the evidence of PW1 to PW6 is not sufficient in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for which the accused stood trial.
26. IN THE RESULT, theaccused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charges U/Sec.498-A of IPC and U/Sec. 4 of DP Act, and consequently they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated U/s. 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
Since there is no case property was deposited hence no order to the extent of property.
Typed to my dictation by stenographer Grade-III, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of April, 2025.
Special Judicial Magistrate Of First
Class(Mobile),Under PCR Act-Cum-
III Additional Junior Civil Judge
Nizamabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR COMPLAINANT FOR ACCUSED
PW-1Nalla Pragna.
PW-2Baddam Madhusudhan Reddy.
PW-3Baddam Namratha. - Nil - PW-4Laxmapur Narayana Reddy.
PW-5Gaddam Rithesh Reddy.
PW-6Proddutur Narotham Reddy.
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
31 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
PW-7R.Krishna, SI of Police.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR COMPLAINANT
Ex.P1Is the Police Report. Ex.P2Is the Online copy of Salary certificate of Respondent No.1, Dt:26.03.2014. Ex.P3Is the Cheque leafs payment made by Petitioner to Respondent No.1 (05). Ex.P4Is the Online Banking statements (36) from the year 2013 to 2016. Ex.P5Is the Rent Payment Receipts (12). Ex.P6Is the Prescriptions and Diagnosis reports of Lotus hospital, Hyderabad Petitioner No.2. Ex.P7Is the Prescriptions and Diagnosis reports of Rainbow Children’s Hospital, Hyderabad Petitioner No.2. Ex.P8Is the Hospital Bills of Petitioner No.2 (34). Ex.P9Is the School fee receipts of Petitioner No.2 of Vasavi Primary School. Ex.P10Is the Passport revocation letter of Respondent No.1, dated:04.01.2019. Ex.P11Is the Passbook of Accused No.2. Ex.P12Is the Pendrive containing Audio conversation, Videos and Photos. Ex.P13Is the First Information Report. Ex.P14Is the Scene of Offence Panchanama.
FOR ACCUSED
Ex.D1Is the forwarded message from PW1 to accused No.1 regarding the Wedding Invitation of her sister on 05.06.2011. Ex.D2Is the Email attached with the flight tickets to USA booked by accused No.1 on 13.06.2011. Ex.D3Is the Photographs of PW1 along with Accused No.1 (36).
Ex.D4Is the Gmail document containing (39) pages.
Ex.D5Is the Gmail documents (8 pages) regarding flight tickets booked by the accused No.1 for the parents of PW1 for their arrival to USA. Ex.D6Is the Email document dated:16.09.2015.
Ex.D7Is the flight tickets booked by accused No.1 for PW1 as well as accused Nos.2 and 3 along with her child return back to USA. Ex.D8Is the Gmail document forwarded by Ministry of Community Affairs from Indian Embassy that Passport of accused No.1 got Impounded. Ex.D9Is the Passport of accused No.1 was devote under the direction of the Central Government dated:08.11.2019. Ex.D10Is the Credit Card bill (05 pages) paid by the accused No.1 which contained
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB
32 of 32
CC.No.1899 of 2018 Dated: 15.04.2025.
the medical bills for treatment of her child as well as the medicines for everyone. Ex.D11Is the Order by RDO, dated:23.09.2017 that the accused No.1 and PW1 as to provide maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to accused Nos.2 and 3. Ex.D12Is the Statement of account (10 pages) of the amount transferred by the accused No.1 to the account of PW1.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
:: NIL::
Special Judicial Magistrate Of First
Class(Mobile),Under PCR Act-Cum-
III Additional Junior Civil Judge
Nizamabad.
SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB