Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.V K S Sharma vs State Of Ap on 24 April, 2020
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH R0Y
Criminal Revision Case No.510 of 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 08.04.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1121 of 2018 in C.C.No.227 of 2017 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District, whereby the petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.2 to 6 in the above C.C.No.227 of 2017 seeking discharge from the case was dismissed.
The revision petitioners are accused Nos. 2 to 6 in C.C.No.227 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District.
It is the case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.05.2013 as per their caste custom. Dowry and other customary articles were given to accused No.1 as per the demand made by accused No.1 and his parents at the time of marriage by the father of the de facto complainant. Within a short period after the marriage, the mother of accused No.1 died due to ill-health. Accused No.2, who is the father-in-law of the de facto complainant, started blaming the de facto complainant stating that on her arrival into 1 their house that the said unfortunate incident of death of his wife took place. He used to harass her in this regard. Accused No.1 also used to visit the house in a drunken state and subject the de facto complainant to physical and mental harassment. He also used to demand additional dowry from her and harass her. Accused No.2, who is his father, used to support him. Accused Nos.3 and 5 are the two married sisters of accused No.1. Accused Nos.4 and 6 are the husbands of accused Nos.3 and 5 respectively. They used to come to the house of accused No.2 during festival seasons. They used to harass the de facto complainant stating that the Aadapaduchu Lanchanams given to accused Nos.3 and 5 at the time of the marriage is very meager and demanded her to pay more money to them towards Aadapaduchu Lanchanams. They also stated that if she satisfies their demand that they would allow her to lead happy marital life with their brother-accused No.1. They also harassed the de facto complainant demanding money from her. Therefore, all the accused-A.1 to A-6, have harassed the de facto complainant with unlawful demands and subjected her to cruelty and committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
On the report lodged by the de facto complainant a case in Crime No.128 of 2017 of Vinukonda P.S. was registered against 2 the accused and the police investigated the said case and after recording the statements of the witnesses, charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The trial Court took cognizance of the said case and after the accused made their appearance in the said case and when the case is coming up for hearing on charges, accused Nos.2 to 6, who are the petitioners herein, filed a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the case on the ground that the allegations made against them by the de facto complainant are vague and no specific dates of the alleged harassment are given in the report lodged by the de facto complainant with the Police and the said allegations are all absolutely false. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are residing in the State of Gujarat and accused Nos.5 and 6 are residing in the State of Tamil Nadu and they have been falsely implicated in this case by making false allegations against them. So, the prosecution against them is not maintainable on the basis of the said vague and false allegations and no offence is made out against them and the allegations are only omnibus allegations and thereby prayed for their discharge from the said case.
The de facto complainant filed a counter opposing the said 3 petition stating that this is not the stage to consider whether the allegations are false or not and it has to be ascertained after the trial of the case. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
After hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the petition on the ground that as per the evidence produced by the prosecution in the form of the statements of LW.1, who is the de facto complainant, and LW.5, who is the maidservant in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2, and LW.6, who is the tenant in the house of accused No.2, prima facie, show that the petitioners along with accused No.1 have subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry and it is a continuing offence and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations is to be decided after full-fledged trial of the case and thereby dismissed the petition.
Aggrieved thereby the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that accused Nos.3 and 5, who are the sisters of accused No.1, were married long back and they have been living separately along 4 with accused Nos.4 and 6, who are their husbands respectively, in other States viz., Gujarat and Tamil Nadu and they were falsely roped into this case and implicated by the de facto complainant by making vague and false allegations against them. So, they are not liable for any prosecution on the basis of the said vague and false allegations. So, there are no valid grounds to frame charges against them to try them for the said offences and the charges would be wholly groundless and thereby prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case and set aside the impugned order of the trial Court and discharge the petitioners from the said case.
Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant would submit that since this revision is preferred against an order passed in a petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the accused, being an interlocutory order, the revision is not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. He would further submit that prima facie there is evidence in the form of the statements of LW.1, who is the de facto complainant, which was amply supported by the statements of Lws.5 and 6, who are the maidservant and tenant in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and their statements clearly show that even accused Nos.3 to 6 while visiting the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 during festival 5 times used to harass the de facto complainant making unlawful demands for additional dowry and Aadapaduchu Lanchanams and as such they are to be tried after framing necessary charges on the basis of the said evidence. So, it cannot be said that the allegations are vague and false. The truth or otherwise of the same is the matter to be decided after the trial of the case. Therefore, he would submit that there are no valid grounds for discharge of the accused and the facts of the case with the available material on record justify framing of charges against all the accused to try them for the said offences and thereby prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case while supporting the impugned order of the trial Court.
As regards the preliminary objection taken by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that this Criminal Revision Case is not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. is concerned, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to straight away reject the said contention in view of the settled law in this regard. No doubt, Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. imposes a bar to entertain a revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. against an interlocutory order. Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.c. is maintainable only against final orders against which no right of appeal is provided. Although the impugned order is passed on a petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 6 seeking discharge of the accused from the case and it was passed during the pendency of the said criminal case, the legal position is now clearly well-settled that an order passed in a petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.c. for discharge of the accused is an intermediate order or a quasi-final order against which revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. is maintainable. An intermediate order or a quasi-final order is the one though passed during the pendency of the case, would have the effect of terminating the main proceedings of the case once for all if ultimately the petition to discharge the accused is allowed. So, it is to be considered as a quasi final order against which a revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. is maintainable. The Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra, held that an order passed in a petition filed to discharge the accused is an intermediate order/quasi final order against which a revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Therefore, it is held that the present revision is perfectly maintainable under law.
Apropos the plea of discharge of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 6 in the above case, is concerned, they primarily sought discharge from the case on two grounds. Firstly, the allegations made against the petitioners by the de facto complainant are false and they are also vague, the date and 7 time of commission of said offence by them against the de facto complainant are not specifically given and as such no charge can be framed against them to try them for the said offences and the charge in the said circumstances of the case would be wholly groundless. Secondly, it is their case that accused Nos.3 and 5 are the married sisters of accused No.1 and they are living with their husbands-accused Nos.4 and 6 respectively in other States viz., Gujarat and Tamil Nadu respectively and they are not residing with accused Nos.1 and 2 and as such, they are falsely roped in and implicated in this case and therefore, no charge can be framed against them to try them for the said offences. Thus, the case of the petitioners in seeking discharge is two-fold. In the considered view of this Court, both the said grounds are not tenable to order for discharge of the accused from the criminal case.
Whether the allegations made against the accused are true or false cannot be ascertained at the stage of framing the charges. The Court cannot undertake an exercise of subjecting the evidence available on record to judicial scrutiny to ascertain whether the said allegations are true or false at the time of considering the case for framing charges against the accused. The Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry to find out whether the evidence in question is trustworthy, reliable or 8 true or not, at the time of considering the case for framing charges. That is purely the function of the trial Court to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution after completion of the trial and decide the truth or otherwise of the said allegations in the final adjudication of the case. At the time of framing charges, the Court cannot consider whether the evidence is true or not.
All that the Court has to see at the time of considering the case for framing charges is whether the allegations are made against the accused regarding commission of any such offences as alleged by the de facto complainant and whether there is prima facie evidence to substantiate the said allegations during the course of trial or not. For that limited purpose only Court can sift and weigh the evidence. If the Court finds that there are allegations made against the accused regarding commission of the said offence and if there is prima facie evidence to that effect against them, and when the Court is satisfied that the charge is not wholly groundless and that the accused are to be tried for the said offences on the basis of the evidence available on record, the Court has to frame appropriate charge and try the accused for the said offences.
In the instant case, the statement of LW.1, who is the de facto complainant, shows that accused Nos.3 to 6 used to visit 9 the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 during festival times and at that time, they used to harass the de facto complainant saying that the amount given towards Aadapaduchu Lanchanams to them at the time of the marriage is meager and that they demanded more money from her towards Aadapaduchu Lanchanams and also additional dowry from her and harassed her in this regard. She also stated in her statement that these petitioners also demanded her to bring additional dowry from her parents and necked her out from the house in the month of December, 2016 after beating her. So, the said statement of LW.1 prima facie shows that these petitioners whenever they visit the house of the de facto complainant and her husband, used to harass her making unlawful demand for additional dowry and that they also beat her and necked her out from the house in the month of December, 2016.
Now, it is relevant to consider the statement of LW.5, who is the maidservant in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2. She also stated that accused Nos.3 to 6 used to visit the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 during festival times and at that time they used to harass the de facto complainant demanding additional Aadapaduchu Lanchanams and that they harassed her physically and mentally.
Lw.6 is the tenant in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2. 10 She also stated that the petitioners, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry from her. Therefore, apart from the evidence of the de facto complainant, there is evidence of independent witnesses of LWs.5 and 6, to prima facie show that the petitioners though living at different places that when they used to come to the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 during festival times that they harassed the de facto complainant both physically and mentally making unlawful demand for additional dowry. The statement of the de facto complainant also show that they all beat her and necked her out from the house in the month of December, 2016 demanding her to bring additional dowry from her parents. The said evidence is sufficient to prima facie presume that they have committed the said offence and it is sufficient to frame appropriate charge against them to try them for the said offences. The trial Court also taking into consideration the said prima facie evidence available on record held that they are not entitled for discharge. So, this Court do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court.
Whether the petitioners used to visit the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 during festival times and made any such unlawful 11 demands and harassed the de facto complainant is the matter to be appreciated by the trial Court after the trial after considering the evidence of the de facto complainant, LW.5 and LW.6. As already noticed supra, this is not the stage to scrutinize the evidence and appreciate the same. So, it cannot be said that the charge against the petitioner is wholly groundless, when there is direct evidence available on record to that effect.
It is also relevant to note here that the petitioners have also filed a petition seeking quash of the F.I.R. against them in Crl. Petition No.6493 of 2017 and the common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh held that at this stage there is nothing to quash the F.I.R. or to interdict the investigation. Therefore, after considering all the above pleas raised by the petitioners since the common High Court has already held that there is nothing to quash the F.I.R., the petitioners can no more agitate on the same grounds and seek discharge from the case. In view of the prima facie evidence available on record, they have to face the trial.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.
12
________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:24-04-2020.
cs 13