Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Moturu Surya Babu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 2020
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2623 of 2020
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') on behalf of accused Nos.2 and 3 to quash the proceedings/trial in S.C.No.69 of 2012 on the file of learned VI Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Sessions Court at Visakhapatnam.
2. The petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant's daughter. The marriage of respondent No.2's daughter i.e. the deceased was performed with the son of the petitioners i.e A1. After the marriage A1 left to Bahrain and later the deceased joined him. During their stay at Bahrain the deceased observed that A1 was moving intimately with one Nazima and played to her tunes. When she questioned the conduct of A1, he grew wild and hit the deceased with stick on her knees and caused injuries. After the said incident the deceased went into her room and bolted the door. After fifteen minutes, when A1 heard sound from the room he pushed the door and found the deceased lying on the edge of the cot. The deceased attempted to commit suicide by hanging and in the said process she slipped and fell on the leg of the cot and received head injury. Immediately she was shifted to the Government Hospital in the Kingdom of Bahrain where she was declared dead. Basing on the complaint given by the father of the deceased, crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 2 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 before III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam and the matter was made over to learned Mahila Sessions Judge Court at Visakhapatnam, where it was numbered as S.C.No.69 of 2012. Thereafter the trial went on and later the petitioners have changed the Advocate and the present Advocate is engaged. Thereafter upon perusal of the same, the counsel for the petitioners understood that the whole trial in S.C.No.69 of 2012 is hit by Section 188 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. Heard Sri P.A.K.Kishore learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state and Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court to several provisions and specifically Section 188 Cr.P.C. and submits that none of the investigation officers from India visited Bahrain because permission was not given by the Government. Therefore, the trial is hit by Section 188 Cr.P.C. and continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Hence, the whole trial is void. As such S.C.No.69 of 2012 is liable to be quashed to secure ends of justice. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Venkateswarlu vs. State of A.P. Tr.Princl. Sec. & Anr.1 with regard to the scope of Section 188 Cr.P.C. and he has also filed docket proceedings. 1 2011(6) SCC 97 3
5. Learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioners have filed Crl.P.No.334 of 2016 before the Court below raising similar contention that the proceedings in trial Court are hit by Section 188 Cr.P.C. and sought for acquittal of the accused. The Court below vide order dated 17.02.2017 rejected the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the said point of law. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the present case since the allegation in the charge sheet make out continuous harassment since the petitioners and A1 started harassing the deceased right from inception of the marriage, even when they were residing at Visakhapatnam and even in Bahrain. The offence under Section 304 is a continuous one in India and part of offence took place in Bahrain. Therefore, the bar under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the case. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petition which has been filed at a very belated stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained.
6. In view of the fact that in S.C.No.69 of 2012 substantial portion of the trial is completed, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Date: 22.10.2020 IKN 4 5 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2623 of 2020 Date: 22.10.2020 IKN