Telangana High Court
Nagaram Kavitha vs Smt. Kancharla Sudharani Shannu ... on 30 November, 2021
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9783 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner-A2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.208 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, RR District, taken on file for the offences under Sections 498-A, 509, 506-II, 323 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The case of prosecution in brief was that the respondent No.1 was a Muslim. On 16-08-1999 she performed love marriage with A1 who was a Hindu and lived with him for one year at Kattangur, Nalgonda District, then one year at her in-law's house at Vanasthalipuram and then along with her husband in a rented house. In the year 2006, her husband got government job as Multi-purpose Health Assistant. In the year 2009, he was transferred to Primary Health Center, Yalal. He developed illegal intimacy with the petitioner - A2 who was also working in the same health center. For the past three years they both were harassing the respondent No.1 physically and mentally and her husband was demanding Rs.2.00 lakhs as additional dowry. On 04-02-2012, she found A-1 and the petitioner at bus stand, Tandur, and questioned them on their illegal activities, on which they abused her in filthy language, gave her fist blows, removed her saree and tied around the neck and insulted her. The petitioner stated that she had to pay Rs.2.00 lakhs to her to leave her husband or else she would pay Rs.2.00 lakhs to her for leaving him. They both threatened to kill her if she again came to Tandur and Dr.GRR,J 2 CrlP.No.9783 of 2013 obtained her signatures on two papers. Basing on the report given by the respondent No.1, Police registered the case vide Crime No.31 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 497, 509, 506-II and 323 read with 34 IPC and after investigation, filed Charge Sheet against A-1 & A-2 (petitioner) for the above offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was neither related to A-1 or his wife. The offence under Sections 498-A IPC could not be attributed against her. The alleged offence took place on 04-02-2012 at Tandur bus stand. The report was lodged on 03-03-2012. The delay was not explained either in FIR or in the Charge Sheet. It would go to show that the case of the prosecution was concocted and was an after-thought. Tandur bus stand was a busy place. LWs.13 & 14 were cited as eye witnesses to the incident. Their statements would show that unknown male and female were beating a woman. The names of the petitioner or A-1 were not revealed in their statements. The said witnesses had not made any attempt to lodge police report. They were planted witnesses closely related to LW8 Varalaxmi with whom the petitioner had got animosity. There were no allegations of criminal intimidation to attract the offences under Sections 506-II and 509 IPC. In so far as the offence under Section 323 IPC was concerned, the medical certificate of the respondent No.1 issued by the doctor on 04-03-2012 would disclose that the latter stated that A1 bet her. The injuries sustained by Dr.GRR,J 3 CrlP.No.9783 of 2013 the respondent No.1 were simple and trivial in nature. The said injuries could be self-inflicted. No useful purpose would be served if trial was conducted as the chance of getting conviction was very remote and prayed to quash the proceedings.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that there were prima facie allegations found against the petitioner-A2 as per the Charge Sheet filed by the police.
6. Perused the record. On a perusal of the provision pertaining to Section 498-A IPC, it was enacted with an object to punish the husband or relatives of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The provision is extracted for a better perusal.
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.
For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
7. As the said provision would not cover the persons who were not related to the husband of the woman, the petitioner who was alleged to have illicit relationship with A1 is not covered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. However, there are prima facie allegations against the petitioner with regard to the other offences Dr.GRR,J 4 CrlP.No.9783 of 2013 under Sections 509, 506-II and 323 r/w 34 IPC. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. It is the function of the trial Court. It was not open to contend that on a reasonable appreciation of evidence, the accusations made against the petitioner would not be sustained. It would be erroneous to assess the material before-hand and conclude that the trial could not be proceeded with. There cannot be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If the ingredients of the offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the investigation is malafide, frivolous or vexatious, there would be no justification for interference by this Court. It was the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in the court which decides the fate of the accused person. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate the evidence if any available on record. This court could not intervene in the criminal proceedings when the enquiry is pending.
8. As such, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part quashing the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC and allowed to continue for the other offences taken on file against her by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. The Charge Sheet is also filed for the offence under Section 497 IPC. However as the Hon'ble Apex Court struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional in the case of Joseph Shine Vs Union of India [2019 Dr.GRR,J 5 CrlP.No.9783 of 2013 (3) SCC 39], the Court cannot proceed with the said Section also.
9. In the result the Criminal Petition is allowed in part quashing the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 498-A and 497 IPC and dismissed in respect of the offences under Section 506-II, 509 and 323 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner herein.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 30, 2021 KTL