Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Lanka Ramakoteswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 November, 2019

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                Criminal Petition No.7006 of 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.

The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in Crime No.136 of 2019 of Ponduru Police Station, Srikakulam District. The alleged offences against the petitioner are under Sections 376, 417 r/w.34 of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that, the victim girl is the daughter of the maternal uncle of the petitioner herein, who is accused No.1 in this case. He proposed to love the de facto complainant and to marry her. On a false promise to marry her, he has also taken her to the lodge in Srikakulam on 02.06.2018 and 04.06.2018 and induced her to have sexual intercourse with him on the promise to marry her and thereby had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter also he used to contact her over phone and he used to meet her at her house. Subsequently, he resiled from his promise and refused to marry her. He has insisted for payment of dowry to marry her. Therefore, he has cheated the de facto complainant and committed the aforesaid offences.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2 CMR, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an employee working as C.I.S.F. Constable at New Delhi presently and earlier he worked at Vadinar, Gujarat State. After the petitioner secured employment, the de facto complainant made a proposal to marry him and as the petitioner rejected the said proposal, she has made a false allegation against him. He would further submit that as the de facto complainant is indulging in blackmailing him, he has filed a private complaint against her for the offence under Section 420 of IPC in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponduru and the same was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the police did not register the case inspite of directions of the Court. Thereafter, the de facto complainant lodged the present report with false allegations and he is innocent and thereby he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the petition. He would submit that the allegations in the F.I.R. clearly show that the petitioner herein has made a proposal to love the de facto complainant and to marry her and induced her to have sexual intercourse with her after taking her to a lodge at Srikakulam on 02.06.2018 and 04.06.2018 and accordingly had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he resiled from his promise and refused to marry her. Therefore, a clear case of cheating is made out from the facts of the case. Mere fact that 3 CMR, J.

he is an employee working as C.I.S.F. Constable is not a valid ground for grant of anticipatory bail to him. He would further submit that investigation in this case is also not completed and thereby he prayed for dismissal of the criminal petition.

Perused the case diary.

As can be seen from the facts of the prosecution case, it is a case of jilted lovers. The de facto complainant is the daughter of the maternal uncle of the petitioner herein. As per the version of the de facto complainant, as set out in the F.I.R., the petitioner herein has proposed to love her and marry her and thereby he has taken her to a lodge at Srikakulam on 02.06.2018 and 04.06.2018 and induced her to have sexual intercourse with him on a promise to marry her and thereby had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he resiled from the said promise and refused to marry her.

Although it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on duty from 15.03.2018 till 24.06.2018 as per the copy of the certificate produced by him, which is dated 09.10.2019, the said certificate issued by the Officer-in-charge of the C.I.S.F. (Out Post) DPT OOT, Vadinar, as per the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for Public Prosecutor, is not genuine. Therefore, the genuineness of the said certificate is still to be ascertained during the course of investigation. At any rate, as the petitioner has now taken the plea of alibi at the relevant point of time, the burden is on him to prove the said plea of alibi, which is to be decided during the 4 CMR, J.

course of trial. As it is a pure disputed question of fact, whether he was on duty at the relevant point of time or not is the matter to be decided during the course of trial. Further, the prosecution is yet to examine the owner of the lodge or the concerned management of the lodge to ascertain whether the petitioner and the de facto complainant visited the said lodge on 02.06.2018 and 04.06.2018 as alleged by the de facto complainant in the F.I.R.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the gravity of the offence as it is a case where the de facto complainant was cheated with a false promise to marry her and thereby induced her to have sexual intercourse with her and having regard to the seriousness of the allegations made in this case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:27.11.2019 cs