Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kota Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 February, 2021
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5025 OF 2019
ORDER:-
This criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), is filed seeking quash of the charge sheet in C.C.No.139 of 2017 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, which now stood transferred to the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.
2. The notice that was ordered against the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant was returned with an endorsement that 'she left India'. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the de facto complainant is now in U.S.A. and as such, he has sent whatsapp message to her informing her that the present criminal petition is filed against her and that she received the whatsapp messages. He has also filed a memo along with screen shots of whatsapp showing that the notice of this petition was given to her. None appeared for the 2nd respondent.
Therefore, heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. Apart from various grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that it is a false case foisted by the de facto complainant against the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") and that she married another person and left India for United States and settled there, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit 2 that this is a crime registered in the year 2014 in Crime No.22 of 2014 and charge sheet was filed in the year 2017 and that the de facto complainant is not turning up for giving evidence in the trial Court and the petitioner is put to much loss, inconvenience and hardship on account of the said conduct of the de facto complainant and thereby prayed for quash of the charge sheet filed against him.
4. Various grounds, on which the petitioner sought quash of the charge sheet alleging that the present criminal case was foisted against the petitioner on false grounds, cannot be gone into by this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quash of the charge sheet as they are purely disputed question of facts. It requires trial to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations ascribed against the petitioner and it is for the trial Court to decide the same in the final adjudication of the case after appreciating the evidence that was adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the charge sheet on the aforesaid factual aspects which are relied on by the petitioner.
5. However, one fact that needs to be taken into consideration which is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not turning up for giving her evidence in this case in a case which is pending trial for the last more than three years. In this context, it is relevant to note that this is a crime which was registered in the year 2014 on the basis of the report lodged by the de facto complainant. The said report lodged by the de facto complainant was registered as a case in Crime No.22 of 2014. After the charge sheet was filed, 3 the said charge sheet was numbered as C.C.No.139 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the file of the trial Court about more than three years back. Since then, the case is pending trial in the said trial Court for the last more than three years period of time. It is not in dispute that the de facto complainant is now not residing in India and she left for U.S.A. and settled in U.S.A. The said fact is not controverted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
6. It is the main grievance of the petitioner that the de facto complainant is not turning up for trial and to give evidence and as such, the proceedings in the trial Court are stalled for the last many years.
7. Considering the said grievance of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that to avoid any such hardship to the petitioner, who is facing the ordeal of trial for the last many years i.e. for more than three years period, that a direction is required to be given to the trial Court to expedite the trial and complete the trial and dispose of the case by fixing a time limit to that effect. The trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure the presence of the de facto complainant to give her evidence before the trial Court and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within the time limit fixed by this Court.
8. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstance of the case, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, as the trial is pending in the above case for the last more than three years period of time, the trial Court is 4 directed to take up expeditious trial in this case and conclude the trial within four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court shall take necessary steps according to law to secure the presence of the de facto complainant to give her evidence. If she fails to turn up for giving evidence, the trial Court shall proceed according to law and dispose of the said case within the time limit fixed above by this Court.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date : 22-02-2021 ARR 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5025 OF 2019 Date : 22-02-2021 ARR