Telangana High Court
Smt. Arepally Thirupathamma vs State Of Telangana on 22 March, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1062 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.239 of 2020 on the file of the Judge, VII Sessions Court for Trial of SC/ST Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections 376(n), 417, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner is Accused No.2 in the said crime.
2. Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Khaja Vijarath Ali, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-State. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of 2nd respondent.
3. The allegations against the petitioner/A.2 herein in the charge sheet are as follows:-
She is the mother of A.1. A.1 promised 2nd respondent/ L.W.1/victim that he will marry her and committed sexual assault on her. Thereafter, A.1 failed to keep up his promise and informed 2nd respondent that his marriage was fixed with another woman and 2 should not make a call nor send any messages to him. He has also blocked her mobile number and also Facebook account. 2nd respondent requested A.1 to marry her as promised but A.1 insulted her saying that she belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala) and he belongs to 'Reddy' community. Therefore, he will not marry her. 2nd respondent informed the petitioner herein/A.2, about the acts committed by A.1 including the promise to marry her and participation in sexual intercourse, for which the petitioner/A.2 threatened 2nd respondent not to talk to her son since their communities are different and she has disconnected the phone call of 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner/A.2 enquired with her son/A.1 who admitted his guilt stating that he had induced 2nd respondent with deceitful words under the guise of love and marriage and exploited her sexually and when she demanded him to marry, he avoided her saying that she belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala). Thus, the petitioner herein/A.2 has committed the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, has recorded the statement of 2nd respondent as L.W.1, her parents as L.ws. 2 and 3 and L.Ws.4 to 6 as circumstantial witnesses. Considering the material, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences.
4. Perusal of the statements of the L.Ws.1 to 3 would reveal that prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner 3 herein in the manner stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein and among those there are certain allegations only against A.1 and 2nd respondent. According to him, it is consensual sex and therefore, the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC does not attract. Prima facie, there are specific allegations against both the A.1 and A.2. All the defences taken by the petitioner herein are triable aspects and the petitioner herein has to take the said defences before the trial Court. The said defences taken by the petitioner cannot be considered in an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has to face trial and prove his innocence during the course of trial.
5. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra1, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, 1 . AIR 2019 SC 847 4 a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
6. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors2, the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to the various judgments rendered by it categorically held that the 2 AIR 2021 SC 931, 5 High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
7. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the above said discussion and the petitioner fails to make out a case, the criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:22.03.2022 vvr