Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 246 (AP)

V. Mallikarjuna Sharma v. V. Rajya Lakshmi

2006-02-22

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2006
ORDER The Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.164 of 2001 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st respondent, who filed the complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and also Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As the police, W.P.S.C.C.S, investigated the matter and submitted a final report stating that the complaint is "false", the wife i.e. the 1st respondent filed a protest petition. After recording her and her father's sworn statements, the Court below took cognizance of the complaint, which was numbered as C.C.No.164 of 2001. 3. The relevant facts of the complaint are as follows: 4. The complainant is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner- A-1, who is the son of A-2 and A-3 and their marriage was solemnized on 9-8-1997, during which time, the complainant's parents gave gold and silver ornaments in addition to dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused. After sometime, the accused developed hatred towards the complainant and started ill-treating her. A-3 used to pick up quarrels on petty and trivial issues, taunt her with the active support of A-1 and A-2 and demand the complainant to bring more money. As she failed to comply with the alleged demands, the accused ill-treated her. In the1st week of September, 1997, A-1, at the instigation of A-2 and A-3, beat the complainant mercilessly and necked out her from the house. Further, all the accused threatened her to do away her with life by pouring kerosene and setting her to fire and would create an impression in the eye of public that it is a fire accident. Apprehending danger to her life, she left to her parent's house. Then, her father took her back to the accused, convinced them to look after her and left her there, but all the accused did not stop ill-treating her and told her that they would relieve her from ill-treatment if she signed on some stamped papers. When A-1 categorically stated that he would not lead martial life with her, she filed O.P.No.217 of 1997 for mutual consent for divorce, which was dismissed. When the complainant told A-1 to A-3 to return all the articles given at the time of marriage and a cash of rupees one lakh, they failed to do so. When A-1 categorically stated that he would not lead martial life with her, she filed O.P.No.217 of 1997 for mutual consent for divorce, which was dismissed. When the complainant told A-1 to A-3 to return all the articles given at the time of marriage and a cash of rupees one lakh, they failed to do so. They all committed breach of trust in respect of her movable properties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anantha Ram, has submitted across the bar that no doubt a reading of the complaint definitely makes out a case, but that alone is not sufficient to hold that the proceedings in C.C.No.164 of 2001 cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to him, the Court has to look into the manifestly attended circumstances and also as envisaged by the Apex Court in a decision reported in The State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and another 2002 (1) Supreme 192 . He tried to argue before this Court stating that though the marriage between the spouses took place on 9-8-1997, they were constrained to file a petition on 13-10-1997 in a span of just two months, seeking divorce by mutual consent. Thus, he tried to place so much of material before this court to establish that the entire exercise of filing the present complaint is manifestly attended with mala fide intention. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent has opposed the said submission stating that the record filed before this Court is not a part of the record available in the Court below, and as such, it cannot be looked into. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that no doubt in the judgment cited supra, the Apex Court has given certain illustrations indicating that the Courts can quash the proceedings under certain categories and one of such illustrations is to the following effect: "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". From a reading of the above illustration, it is clear that no doubt, the Court can definitely look into the manifestly attended with mala fide intention, but this exercise shall not be done by looking into all those documents that are to be looked into by the Court below during the course of trial. If such an exercise is accepted following the illustration laid by the Supreme, Court, in my considered view, the entire criminal judicial system gets frustrated, because in any case, they can put forth this type of material and request the Court to quash the proceedings invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That is not the purpose for which the Supreme Court gave such an illustration. Manifestly supposing the counsel for the petitioner is able to establish that the complaint is filed with a mala fide intention, from a reading of the complaint, then only the Court can quash the proceeding, but not by looking into various documents which are basically to be looked into by the Court below during the course of trial. In fact, in the same, judgment, the Apex Court also observed to the following effect: "It would not be proper for the High Court to analyze the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code". If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code". From the above also, it is manifest that if the petitioner is able to establish that the complaint is manifestly attended with mala fide intention, then only the Court can interfere and quash the same under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In my considered view, the present one is not a case of that nature which requires interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the fact that the complaint was filed as early as in the year 2001, the learned Magistrate is hereby directed to dispose of C.C.No.164 of 2001 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months.