Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Venkata Naik vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 August, 2019
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Criminal Petition No.4740 of 2019
ORDER:
1. In this Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners/A2 & A3 seek to quash the proceedings against them in Cr.No.74/2019 of Mylavaram Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered against them and A1 for the offences under Sections 493, 420, 307 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant is the resident of Nelanuthala Village, Mylavaram Mandal and belongs to Sugali Caste. A1 moved around her on the pretext of love and marriage and had sexual intercourse with her and ultimately repudiated his responsibility. In the Panchayat held before the elders on 23.07.2018, the petitioners-A2 & A3, who are the parents of A1, promised that they would perform the marriage after one year as their son was still studying. After the stipulated time was over, when the elders of complainant approached the accused, A2 & A3 demanded Rs.9.00 lakhs as dowry to perform the marriage of A1 with complainant. Though the elders protested against such demand, there was no use. Thereafter, A1 on the pretext of marrying the complainant took her to the Prathap Lodge at Proddatur and tried to kill her and destroyed all the evidence showing their relationship like Mobile phone, sim card etc. On the next day, he left the complainant there and went away. Investigation is reported to be pending.
2
3. Denying the allegations learned counsel for the petitioners sought for quashing of the proceedings on the submission that even if the prosecution case is believed, the allegations against the petitioners-A2 & A3 would attract only Section 420 IPC and nothing more than that.
4. A perusal of the C.D. file shows that there is a prima facie accusation against the petitioners-A2 & A3 showing their complicity. Of course, the C.D. file shows the allegations relating to Sections 493 & 307 IPC are mainly attributed against A1, but not the petitioners-A2 & A3. Investigation is reported to be pending.
5. In these circumstances, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. However, considering the fact that the main allegations against the petitioners-A2 & A3 would attract the offence under Section 420 IPC at this stage, the Investigating Officer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines rendered by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1 during the course of investigation towards the petitioners-A2 & A3. The petitioners-A2 & A3 are directed to cooperate with the Investigating Agency for smooth completion of investigation.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 28.08.2019 Note : Issue C.C. by 30.08.2019 (B/o) MVA 1 2014 (5) SCC 324