Telangana High Court
E.Anandam Goud 4 Others vs K.Anitha The State Of Telangana, Rep By ... on 14 October, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10564 of 2017
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 to quash S.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, the cognizance of which was taken for the offences under Sections 342, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The facts in brief as can be seen from record available before the Court are as under:
a) On 27.10.2015 at 1.00 PM the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before Dharur Police Station, Ranga Reddy District alleging that her marriage was performed with first petitioner - accused No.1 on 14.05.2013 and thereafter de-facto complainant gave birth to one child. Later, the first petitioner subjected the de-facto complainant to cruelty and harassed her physically and mentally and in this connection the de-facto complainant has filed a complaint before Women Police Station, 2 Vikarabad and since then the de-facto complainant has been residing at her parents' house situated at Moosapet, Balanagar Mandal.
b) On 26.10.2015 at 10.00 AM the first petitioner called to her mobile phone and informed that in view of Dushera Festival, he has brought new dress to their child and asked her to come to Allipur, so as to take the dress. On that the de-facto complainant along with her two sisters and her son went to her in-laws' house at Allipur at 9.00 PM, wherein the accused have attacked them by sprinkling chilli-powder and beat them indiscriminately with belts and hands by abusing in filthy language on her caste name as "malli enduku vacchare mala lanjalara". Accordingly, the de-facto complainant has lodged complaint to take necessary action against the accused.
c) Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.82 of 2015 was registered for the offence under Sections 342, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
3 (i)(x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet, the cognizance of which was taken as S.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Judge 3 for Trial of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 to quash S.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against them on the following grounds:
i) On 30.05.2014 the de-facto complainant has married one Byagari Ram Kumar @ Ramaiah, who is legally wedded husband of de-facto complainant at Ambedkarnagar, Moosapet, Balanagar. During the wedlock of the de-facto complainant and Ram Kumar, the de-facto complainant gave birth to a male child on 12.02.2014 at Life Spring Hospital, Kukatpally. In the birth certificate of the child issued by G.H.M.C. Circle XIV, father's name of the child is shown as Karka Ramaiah. Subsequently disputes arose between de-facto complainant and said Ram Kumar and de-facto complainant has filed FCOP No.1084 of 2015 on the file of learned II Additional Family Court at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District for grant of divorce on 17.06.2014 showing her husband as Ram Kumar and that she married him on 31.05.2013.4
ii) The marriage of de-facto complainant with Ram Kumar was performed on 31.05.2013 and whereas according to the de- facto complainant her marriage with first petitioner was performed on 14.05.2013. The FCOP No.1084 of 2015 filed by the de-facto complainant was dismissed for non-prosecution.
iii) Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has no application, as de-facto complainant will not fall under the definition of 'wife'. The de-facto complainant has also filed DVC No.8 of 20165 on the file of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur against the first petitioner and after counter was filed, the de-facto complainant has withdrawn the same.
iv) There are no merits in this complaint and therefore sought for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.14 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
3. Though notice was served on the respondent No.1, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1. Heard Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and perused the record. 5
4. Now the point for determination is:
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
5. The only ground on which the petitioners are seeking for quashment of proceedings in S.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against them is that the de-facto complainant will not come under the definition of 'wife', as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and thereby the offence alleged against the petitioners will not lie. According to the case of the de-facto complainant, she is married to first petitioner on 14.05.2013 and got the said marriage registered on 10.09.2014 in the office of Sub Registrar and subsequently the de-facto complainant gave birth to a male child. It is further alleged that the first petitioner has married third petitioner and started harassing the de-facto complainant physically and mentally apart from demanding dowry. The case of the petitioners, on the other hand is that the de-facto complainant is not legally wedded wife and her marriage was 6 already performed with one Ram Kumar @ Ramaiah, who is a resident of Patancheruvu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, on 30.05.2014 at Ambedkarnagar, Moosapet, Balanagar and through him the de-facto complainant gave birth to a male child and to that extent G.H.M.C. Circle - XIV has also given birth certificate.
6. In order to consider an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the Court is expected to go through the contents of charge sheet and come to the conclusion as to whether continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law. The de-facto complainant has not filed any document to show that her marriage was performed with first petitioner on 14.05.2013. According to first petitioner, as per the admission of de-facto complainant in divorce petition filed against one Ram Kumar, the marriage of de-facto complainant was performed with Ram Kumar on 31.05.2013. Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, if the contention of the de-facto complainant in this case and also in the divorce petition are taken into consideration, her marriage was performed with first petitioner on 14.05.2013 and whereas her marriage was also performed with one Ram Kumar on 7 31.05.2013 i.e., within 16 days of her marriage with the first petitioner she has again married with Ram Kumar. Either of the things could be incorrect or may be both of them may be correct and the de-facto complainant could have married both of them. However, there is a certificate of registration of marriage of de-facto complainant with first petitioner on 10.09.2014. Therefore, if the marriage certificate is accepted, ignoring the fact that alleged marriage of the de-facto complainant with the first petitioner on 14.05.2013, for which there is no evidence, it is deemed that the marriage of the de-facto complainant with the first petitioner will become invalid on account of marriage of the de-facto complainant with Ram Kumar on 31.05.2013. In the contrary, if the marriage of the de-facto complainant was performed with first petitioner on 14.05.2013, then her marriage as per the marriage certificate dated 10.09.2014 would become invalid on account of her marriage with Ram Kumar on 31.05.2013.
7. Basing on the contents of both sides, this Court cannot decide as to on which date the de-facto complainant has married the petitioner. The parties are required to go to the trial Court, so that a finding based on the oral and documentary 8 evidence as to on which date the marriage of the de-facto complainant was performed with whom, can be recorded.
8. As seen from the contents of the charge sheet, the investigating agency has examined as many as 15 witnesses including the victims, eyewitnesses and official witnesses. On perusal of the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is prima-facie material to the effect that the petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them. However, there are several factual issues involved in this case, which are to be dealt and decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties.
9. The Honourable Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment decided between State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others1, has formulated certain guidelines under which Court can consider quashment of criminal case. The guidelines are:
"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
1
1992 AIR 604 9
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
10. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Bhajanlal's case (referred supra) contending that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are absurd, as seen 10 from the contents of the complaint, statements of de-facto complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and charge sheet, it is evident that the first petitioner has invited the de-facto complainant to his native place Allipur under the guise of purchasing new dress to son of the de-facto complainant and on such invitation, the de-facto complainant and her family members went there and soon after their arrival, all the accused have sprinkled chilli powder, beat them with belts and hands apart from abusing in filthy language in the name of their caste. So, the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the allegations leveled against the petitioners as 'absurd' cannot sustain. Further, though learned senior counsel for the petitioners has taken a plea that the de-facto complainant will not fall under the definition of "wife" as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to note that the case under challenge in this case is filed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 342, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but not for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, whether the de-facto complainant is the legally 11 wedded wife of first petitioner is not relevant in this case and even if it is relevant, it has to be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial based on the material placed before the trial Court.
11. Thus, in view of the principle laid down in the above said authority, viewing from any angle, the petitioners failed to establish any of the grounds to quash proceedings against them in S.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and thereby the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the case against the petitioners in S.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar on merits, uninfluenced by the observations and comments made by this Court in this order.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 14.10.2022 AS