Telangana High Court
Pandrangi Sankar Rao And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 6 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7212 OF 2019
ORDER:
Heard Sri D.V. Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Raghuram Mahadev, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and learned Public Prosecutor. Despite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
2. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4342 of 2018 pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.
3. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 and 3 in the said C.C. Offences alleged against them are under section 498A of IPC and a under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2 Crl. P. No.7212 of 2019
4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are that, the marriage of 2nd respondent with A-1 was performed on 19.04.2014. After one week of the said marriage, petitioners along with A-1 started harassing the 2nd respondent demanding additional dowry. They were blessed with a baby boy through IVF treatment on 14.05.2017 and the entire expenditure of the said treatment was borne by her father. Both the petitioners and A-1 have obtained a note from her and her parents saying that the 2nd respondent has committed mistake. By showing the same, the petitioners and A-1 are harassing the 2nd respondent both mentally and physically. Cradle ceremony of the boy was performed on 11.06.2017 and petitioners along with A-1 attended the said function and quarrled with the 2nd respondent for money. They have issued a legal notice with all false and baseless allegations, for which, the 2nd respondent has issued a reply. Thus, 3 Crl. P. No.7212 of 2019 according to her, the petitioners along with A-1 harassed her both mentally and physically.
5. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, police KPHB, have registered a crime No.776 of 2018 against the petitioners and A-1 for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of 2nd respondent as LW.1, her parents as LWs 2 and 3. They have also examined independent witness as LW.4. On consideration of entire evidence, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein and A-1. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.4342 of 2018.
6. Sri D.V. Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, would submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein. All the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are omnibus allegations. There is no 4 Crl. P. No.7212 of 2019 specific incident mentioned or alleged. The contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. He also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would further submit that 2nd petitioner/A-3 received electric shock, received multiple fractures on her shoulder, she got operated. She is also heart patient and earlier she suffered massive heart attack. Even then, the 2nd respondent is harassing the petitioners herein. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.4342 of 2018 against the petitioners herein.
7. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that there are specific allegations against both the petitioners herein. They have harassed the 2nd respondent both mentally and physically. The Investigating Officer on consideration of the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, laid charge 5 Crl. P. No.7212 of 2019 sheet against the petitioners herein. They are triable issues. The petitioners herein have to face trial and prove their innocence. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present petition.
8. The above said submissions would reveal that there is no dispute that the marriage of A-1 with the 2nd respondent was performed on 19.04.2014. They were blessed with a male child on 14.05.2017. There is also no dispute that the 2nd respondent has taken IVF treatment. Naming ceremony/cradle ceremony of the said boy was performed.
9. In the complaint dt.19.08.2018 and also in the statements recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the 2nd respondent has specifically made certain specific allegations against both the petitioners herein with regard to harassment made by them. The said version is supported by the statements of her parents (LWs 2 and 3). The Investigating Officer 6 Crl. P. No.7212 of 2019 has also recorded the statements of one Mr. Gokavalasa Venkat Ramana as LW.4. He also stated that both the petitioners herein along with A-1 have harassed the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally. Thus, prima facie there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein.
10. In Geeta Mehrotra and others Vs. State of U.P., the Hon'ble Apex Court held that implicating the parents of the husband with bald allegations in a criminal case is not warranted. Whereas in the case on hand, as discussed supra, prima facie there are specific allegations against both the petitioners. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of present case.
11. In Preeti Gupta and others Vs. State of Jharkhan and others; reported in (2010) (7) SCC 667, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that parents of the husband therein never visited the place where the 7 Crl. P. No.7212 of 2019 incident had taken place and they never lived with complainant and her husband. Their implication in criminal case is abuse of process of law. Whereas the facts of the present case are altogether different from the facts of the said case. In the case on hand, as discussed supra, prima facie there are specific allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of present case.
12. The defences taken by the petitioners herein cannot be considered in a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The said principle was also held by the Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra1, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was 1 . AIR 2019 SC 847 8 Crl. P. No.7212 of 2019 frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to the High Court to quash the same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of the complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing a complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only relevant question was whether averments in the complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses any prima facie offences that were alleged 9 Crl. P. No.7212 of 2019 against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on the ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
13. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution. 2 . AIR 2021 SC 931 10 Crl. P. No.7212 of 2019
14. As stated supra, prima facie there are certain specific allegations against both the petitioners herein. A-2 is aged about 74 years and A-3 is aged about 66 years. The 2nd petitioner/A-3 is suffering with various ailments in cardiac. In proof of the same, she has filed medical reports. The 1st petitioner is also aged 74 years. It is also relevant to note that A-1 had filed O.P.No.977 of 2018 seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The said O.P. is pending. Thus, there are several triable issues and the petitioners have to face the trial and prove their innocence.
15. In view of the above said discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.4342 of 2018 against the petitioners herein. However, in matrimonial disputes, the identification of parties is not in dispute. In view of the same, this criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of petitioners/A2 and A3 in C.C. No.4342 of 11 Crl. P. No.7212 of 2019 2018 pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.
16. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of petitioners/A2 and A3 in C.C. No.4342 of 2018 pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. However, they shall appear before the said Court as and when their presence is required.
17. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 06.06.2022 BDR