Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 357 (AP)

Bapuji Narmada v. State Of A. P.

2000-06-06

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY

body2000
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by accused No. 2 in CC No. 281 of 1997 on the file of the learned Judicial, First class Magistrate at Bhainsa to quash the proceedings against her in the said case. ( 2 ) ONE Sripathi Gangadhar Chary s/o Gangaram is the accused No. 1. He is alleged to have abducted the petitioner herein with a view to compel her to marry him. He is alleged to have seduced the petitioner to have intercourse, it is alleged that he abducted the petitioner who is a married woman against her will and forcibly had illicit intercourse knowing that the petitioner is the wife of another person. That in brief is the allegation against accused No. 1. Basing on the said allegation and a complaint filed by the father-in-law of the petitioner herein, the police registered a case in Crime no. 25 of 1997 under Section 366 IPC and took up investigation. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the police that during the investigation, it is revealed that the said Sripathi Gangadhar Chary (A1) knowing fully well that the petitioner herein is a married woman and having children seduced her to have sexual intercourse by abducting her and keeping her in the house of LAW-12. But in the course of investigation, the investigating agency reached the conclusion that the petitioner herein had also committed an offence under section 497 IPC as she has been living in adultery with accused No. 1. It is that portion in the charge-sheet which is questioned by the petitioner in this application filed under section 482 Cr. PC. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, even according to the charge-sheet filed by the police, the petitioner herein is the victim, as she is alleged to have been abducted by accused No. 1 with a view to have illicit intercourse with her. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 abducted the petitioner herein against her will and consent knowing fully well that she is a married woman and having children. The abduction itself is alleged to be with a purpose to marry the petitioner herein. It is rather surprising that the police having investigated the case against A1 roped in the petitioner and implicated her as A2 on the ground that she has been living in adultery with Al. The abduction itself is alleged to be with a purpose to marry the petitioner herein. It is rather surprising that the police having investigated the case against A1 roped in the petitioner and implicated her as A2 on the ground that she has been living in adultery with Al. In one breath, the prosecution alleges that A1 abducted the petitioner herein without her consent and subjected her to sexual intercourse. On the other hand, it is alleged as if the petitioner is voluntarily residing in adultery with accused no. l. It is rather incongruous and makes the whole version of the prosecution totally inconsistent. In may considered opinion, the charge-sheet so far as this portion in concerned implicating the petitioner as A2 suffers from incurable infirmities. It is nothing but an abuse of process. It is one of those rarest of rare cases where the charge-sheet itself has to be quashed so far as the allegation against the petitioner herein is concerned. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, no charge under Section 497 IPC could be framed against the petitioner herein, as there is no complaint by an aggrieved person in the matter, it is only the petitioner s husband who could have filed the complaint against the petitioner herein that she has committed an offence punishable under Section 497 ipc. ( 6 ) A bare reading of Section 198 cr. PC makes the legal position absolutely clear. Section 198 of Cr. PC in categorical terms declares that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence and sub-section (1) of Section 198 Cr. PC declares that for the purpose of sub-section (1), no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence, punishable under Section 497 or Section 498 of the said code. Ofcourse, provided that in the absence of the husband, some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his behalf. In the instant case, the petitioner s husband is cited as one of the witnesses in the case. Ofcourse, provided that in the absence of the husband, some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his behalf. In the instant case, the petitioner s husband is cited as one of the witnesses in the case. It is not as if the petitioner was left in the care and custody of somebody else in the absence of her husband. Therefore, the charge under Section 497 ipc could not be levelled against the petitioner, as there is no complaint by an aggrieved person. ( 7 ) IT is rather surprising that the investigating agency concluses that the petitioner is also liable for punishment for the offense under Section 366 IPC. It is rather strange and it sounds stranger than picture. The main allegation of kidnap is levelled against A1 who is alleged to have kidnapped the petitioner herein, abducted and induced the petitioner and compelled her to marry him and therefore, liable for punishment under Section 366 IPC. But curiously in the charge-sheet it is alleged that the petitioner is also liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC. The petitioner simultaneously cannot be treated as a witness as well as the accused. ( 8 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, it is one of the rarest of rare cases where the court requires to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC and quash the whole of the proceedings against the petitioner. The proceedings against A1 shall go on in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. ( 9 ) THE criminal petition is accordingly allowed.