Telangana High Court
Bommaraveni Kavitha vs State Of Telangana And Another on 17 January, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5935 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard the petitioner as party-in-person and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed to declare that second petition vide C.F.R. No. of 2021 filed under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. is absolutely maintainable and for a consequential direction to the Court below to take the same and direct respondent No.2 to investigate the case by himself or to direct an investigation to be made by any Police Officer subordinate to him by registering a crime.
3. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein is the de facto complainant. She has filed a complaint dated 26.08.2020 before the Godavarikhani I - Town Police Station, Peddapalli District stating that she is an Advocate practicing at Munsif Court, Godavarikhani, while Sanam Murali is also an Advocate. Both of them aquatinted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, accused No.1 luring her that books for preparation of Groups are available in his house took her to his house at Markendeya Colony 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.5935 of 2021 two years prior to the lodging of the said complaint. When she went to his house, none were available in the house and taking advantage of the same, accused No.1 mixed some intoxicant substance with the Cool Drink and made her to drink. Thereafter, he had assaulted her sexually and even taken her nude pictures and videos and thereafter threatened her saying that she has to meet him whenever he wants, failing which, he would upload such pictures in social media. She further alleged that on 02.11.2019, when her menstruation had stopped, she got suspicious and got examined through Medical Test, in which her pregnancy was confirmed. When the said fact was brought to the notice of accused No.1 along with her family members, accused No.1 demanded them to pay Rs.8.00 lakhs towards dowry for marrying her. However, accused No.1 and his family members asked her to undergo abortion and she was forcibly made to undergo abortion by the accused at Sri Adithi Maternity General Nursing Home, Godavarikhani by Dr. Sujatha Reddy, MBBS, DGN. Her father also paid an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- to accused No.2 for getting Process Server Job, but later he changed his word. In that connection, even he attached her at her house.
3
KL,J Crl.P. No.5935 of 2021
4. Basing on the said complaint, the police of I-Town Godavarikhan Police Station had registered a case in Crime No.312 of 2020 for the offences under Sections - 448, 427, 417, 420, 290, 324, 376, 376 (2)(n)(i), 313 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against accused Nos.1 to 5. Accused No.2 is brother of Accused No.1, while accused No.3 is his mother, accused No.4 is his sister-in-law and accused No.5 is his sister, and took up for investigation.
5. After completion of the investigation, the police has filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Godavarikhani, has committed the same to the Sessions Court. The said S.C. No.101 of 2021 is pending.
6. While so, the petitioner herein, de facto complainant, gave a complaint to the police, I-Town Police Station Godavarikhani for proper investigation and to submit a report. Since the police did not respond on the said complaint, she has filed a representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Peddapalli contending that the Investigating Officer in Crime No.312 of 2020 did not investigate the 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.5935 of 2021 case properly and that the contents of the charge sheet would give scope to the accused for getting them acquitted. The Investigating Officer colluded with the accused and filed the charge sheet favouring the accused and, therefore, she requested to investigate by himself or direct the investigation to be done by any Police Officer subordinate to him. Since respondent No.2 did not take any action on the said representation, she has filed a petition under Section - 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapalli vide C.F. No.426 of 2021. Pursuant to the said petition, the learned Magistrate, Peddapalli, vide Dis.No.543, dated 31.03.2021 referred the said complaint to respondent No.2 under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. for registration, investigation and filing report. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 has appointed Assistant Commissioner of Police, Godavarikhani, to investigate the matter.
7. While the matter stood thus, again the petitioner herein has filed another petition under Section - 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. vide C.F. No.330 of 2021 (Nil Disposal) on 14.04.2021 seeking the similar relief sought in C.F. NO.426 of 2021. However, the learned Magistrate, Peddapalli returned the said petition on the ground that 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.5935 of 2021 self-same petition has filed earlier and the same was already referred to respondent No.2, who in turn appointed ACP, Godavarikhani, to investigate.
8. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present petition contending that this Court has inherent power to declare that the second petition under Section - 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
9. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner has already filed a petition under Section - 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. to refer the grievance of the petitioner to respondent No.2 for investigation and report. Pursuant to the same, the learned Magistrate, Peddapalli vide order dated 31.03.2021 in C.F. No.426 of 2021, referred her grievance to respondent No.2. Again filing a similar petition vide C.F. No.330 of 2021 seeking the very same relief is unwarranted and the learned Magistrate returned the said petition on the ground that similar petition has already filed earlier and the same was referred to respondent No.2. In view of the same, there is no error committed by the learned Magistrate, Peddapalli in returning the petition filed vide C.F. No.330 of 2021. Moreover, if at all the petitioner is not satisfied with the reference made by the learned Magistrate, Peddapalli and the 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.5935 of 2021 investigation by respondent No.2, the petitioner is at liberty to file a complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate narrating all the events, but she did not do so. Without availing the alternative remedy available to her under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C., she has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. The principle laid down in Padala Venkata Rama Reddy v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy1 and Mohindro v. State of Punjab2 is not applicable to the facts of the case.
11. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to her under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 17th January, 2022 Mgr 1 . (2011) 12 SCC 437 2 . (2001) 9 SCC 581