Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dandamudi Sai Krishna Sekhar @ Ravi ... vs The State, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, ... on 30 July, 2014
Author: K.G.Shankar
Bench: K.G.Shankar
HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.3313 of 2013
30-7-2014
Dandamudi Sai Krishna Sekhar @ Ravi Sekhar @ Ravi Petitioner/Accused No.1
The State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad; and
another... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Bali Reddy,
Senior Counsel
Counsel for Respondent No.1: Addl. Public Prosecutor
Counsel for Respondent No.2: ---
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?Cases referred:
Nil.
HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.3313 of 2013
Date: 30-7-2014
Order:
The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.555 of
2005 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate cum Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna
District. Case against him was split up and was
numbered as C.C.154 of 2009. Accused 2 to 4 faced trial
in C.C.No.555 of 2005. They were charged for the
offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (the
D.P. Act, for short). The prosecution examined
7 witnesses and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. The defence
marked Ex.D-1 on its side. The Trial Court found
accused 2 to 4 not guilty for the offences under Sections
498-A and 406 IPC. They were found guilty for the
offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and were
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of
6 months each and to a fine of one month each with
appropriate default sentence. Contending that as
accused 2 to 4 were acquitted for the offences under
Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, the petitioner seeks for the
quashment of C.C.No.154 of 2009 against him for those
offences.
2. The petitioner is accused No.1. He is the
husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.
The other accused are the mother, sister and brother of
accused No.1. So far as accused No.1 is concerned,
Sri T.Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, contended that
the petitioner has been a citizen of United States of
America (USA) and by the date of the marriage, he was
a Green Card holder. He pointed out that the case of the
2nd respondent is that the mother of the petitioner
demanded for dowry and that there was no complicity on
the part of the petitioner/accused No.1. However, in the
complaint, in the charge-sheet as well as in her evidence
as P.W.1, the 2nd respondent contended that the
petitioner herein demanded her to put property in the
name of his mother/accused No.2. Thus, it is not as
though there is no case against the present petitioner.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
contended that the marriage between the petitioner and
the 2nd respondent was solemnized on 05-8-2001 and
was consummated on 09-8-2001. He pointed out that
the petitioner, being a Green Card holder 2nd level, left for
USA on 14-8-2001. Almost immediately thereafter, the
2nd respondent also went to USA (on 23-8-2001).
It would appear that the 2nd respondent complained to
the Detector in USA against the petitioner. The petitioner
was arrested in USA on 01-4-2002 and was released on
09-4-2002. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the petitioner and the
2nd respondent however reconciled their disputes on
23-9-2003 and that the 2nd respondent returned to India
in November, 2003 and lodged a complaint with
Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada on 01-12-2003.
He also submitted that the 2nd respondent filed O.P.No.10
of 2004 on the file of the Family Court, Vijayawada for
divorce and deliberately gave incorrect address of the
petitioner, so much so, notice of O.P., was not served
upon the petitioner herein. On 17-02-2005, the
2nd respondent would appear to have obtained divorce
through ex parte orders.
4. Be that as it may, the main question is whether
the case against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.
Ordinarily, when there are more than one accused in
a case and when the case ended in acquittal in respect of
some of the accused, the same may act as a ground to
quash the case against the remaining accused, if the
evidence against all the accused was common.
In the present case, separate overt acts were attributed
against the petitioner vis--vis the overt acts attributed
against accused 2 to 4. Not only P.W.1, other witnesses
of the prosecution also attributed separate overt acts to
the petitioner/accused No.1. The allegations in the
complaint as well as the evidence are distinct so far as
the petitioner is concerned. An acquittal of the case
against accused 2 to 4 per se cannot work out as an
acquittal against the petitioner. The allegations
constituting the overt acts so far as the husband/
petitioner/accused No.1 and the allegations against the
mother-in-law/accused No.2, brother-in-law and sister-
in-law of the 2nd respondent cannot be equated with each
other. I am afraid that the evidence on record per se may
not be sufficient to bring home an acquittal against the
petitioner. The petitioner may have to lead his own
cross-examination and elicit truth from the witnesses,
so far as the petitioner is concerned. Till then, the
petitioner cannot be exonerated from facing trial.
I see no merits in this petition at this stage. I consider
that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to face trial
and seek an acquittal in the event there is no evidence or
there is no appropriate evidence to bring home the guilt
of the accused, against the petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt.
5. Consequently, this criminal petition is dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
petition shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
30th July, 2014