Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yugendar Babu Damodaran, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 September, 2022
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6456 OF 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3887 of 2021 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. A Charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner/A1 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC, 506 and 509 IPC under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The allegations, in brief, in the charge sheet may be stated as follows:
On 11.11.2016, the marriage of 2nd respondent herein who is the de facto complainant was performed with A1. A2 and A3 who are the petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the parents and A4 and A5 who are the petitioners 3 and 4 herein are the brother and sister-in- law of A1 respectively. The de facto complainant/2nd respondent herein gave report to police alleging that at 2 the time of her marriage with the A1, he was working as Accountant in Abudabi of U.A.E. and on demand, her parents gave cash of Rs.3,00,000/- and gold ornaments worth Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and she lived with her husband for about one month at Arakkonam, Tamilnadu State. Her husband used to spend during that one month period of her stay with him, with his friends and that he had no interest at all in leading sexual life with her, and after one month he left for Abudabi without informing her as to when he would take her to there. However, during the month of February, 2017, she went alone to Abudabi and stayed with her husband for about three (3) months. Even during that time also he did not at all show any interest towards her and on the other hand he used to spend much time with his friends. When she made enquiries, she came to know that her husband (A1) is a gay. When she became pregnant he forced her to go to India and that A1 harassed her both physically and mentally stating that unless she brings cash of Rs.30,00,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold he would not allow her and sent her 3 forcibly to India. On 03.11.2017 she gave birth to a female child at her parents' house. Her husband (A1) and her parents-in-law (A2 and A3) came to her at Tirupati and made galata for giving birth to a female child and also demanded her to bring cash of Rs.30,00,000/- towards additional dowry else she will not be allowed to lead matrimonial life. In the 5th month of her child, she went to her in-laws house with her parents and though she was not allowed by her parents-in-law she forcibly stayed in their house for about 40 days and during that time her husband returned from Abudabi and then onwards all the accused started harassment both mentally and physically and finally she was necked out from the house by keeping her child in a room locked, by stating that she will be allowed only if she brings cash of Rs.30,00,000/- and gold of 10 sovereigns by selling the land which is in her name. She then gave report in Arakkonam Police station and the police conducted mediation and handed over the child to her and advised her to go to her parents' house,. Then she left to her parents' house. The accused did not heed to the advice of 4 elders. After her husband/ the A1 left for Abudabi again, on 13.2.2020, she too went to Abudabi along with her daughter and found her husband staying in the house with some male persons and he threatened her and also necked out her. Then she returned to India to her parents' house and that the Accused did not come and take her to lead marital life.
Basing on the said report the police registered the case on 05.11.2020 and after conducting investigation filed charge-sheet alleging that all the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 506, 509 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (A1), the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. This Court perused the entire record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the allegations made against the petitioner in the report as well as in the charge sheet are of utter 5 falsehood. Because 2nd respondent/de facto complainant did not live for much time with the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner is living in Abudabi and that some differences might have arisen between them when she joined him and thereby false case is foisted much less after filing of the Divorce Petition by 2nd respondent herein. Thus, it is contended that none of the offences is attracted and therefore the petition may be allowed and the charge sheet proceedings on the file of the learned trial Court may be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the allegations made in the report as well as statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses also makes out prima facie case against the petitioner. Thus the truth or otherwise of the said accusations have to be decided during the course of trial and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submissions made for the 2nd respondent.
6
7. A perusal of report given to police as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. go to show some serious allegations against the petitioner made by the de facto complainant. They are to the extent that the accused harassed her both physically and mentally and it was for additional dowry of Rs.30,00,000/- and also for 10 sovereigns of gold. It is also alleged that A1 has taken away her child and necked her out. A perusal of the said statement of de facto complainant and the statements of other witnesses on record go to show that there are serious accusations against the petitioner.
8. At this juncture, this Court has to look into the contents of the report, 161 Cr.P.C. statements and the charge-sheet. On perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet, prima facie discloses that specific accusations are made as against the petitioner. At this stage, this Court would not be in a position to ascertain truth or otherwise of the said accusations. The defences that are sought to be raised are all being questions of fact, they have to be established in the course of trial. This Court is conscious of 7 the fact under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is primarily concerned with the accusations that are made in the charge-sheet and other material available on record, but cannot make a roving enquiry about the truthfulness or falsity of the same.
9. In view of the same, this is premature for this Court to interfere in the proceedings pending on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date: 14.09.2022 GR 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6456 OF 2021 Date:14.09.2022 GR