Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 244 (AP)

Vijayendra Rao v. State of A. P.

2008-04-01

G.BHAVANI PRASAD

body2008
ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the first information report in Crime No. 59 of 2008 of Malkajgiri Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. 2. The arguments of Sri Govind Reddy Mandadi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the second respondent, and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor-the first respondent are heard. 3. While the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent canvassed against and for the continuance of the Criminal Proceedings, Sri A. Ramesh desired the matter to be decided on merits. 4. The factual background is that the second respondent gave the report to the Station House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, on 21-01-2008 against the petitioner and others leading to the registration of the crime for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The second respondent broadly alleged that she was married to the petitioner herein in June, 1997 at which time, dowry by way of cash, gold etc., were paid, but immediately after the marriage, demands for more money and taunting that had it been some other alliance, the petitioner would have got a lot of dowry started. The second respondent alleged that as long as she was at Hyderabad, she was subject to cruelty by her husband, in-laws and sisters-in law. The second respondent even narrated the various events that happened between the couple and with the family of the in-laws since July, 1997 and claimed that in October, 2001, a panchayat was conducted between both parties when she came to India, which was attended by the well-wishers and relatives. She also referred to her again coming to India in 2004 during which period, again her husband, in-laws and sister-in-law picked up quarrels with all her family members and she was specific that during that visit to India, the petitioner-her husband tried to keep her away and was not allowing her to meet her parents, brothers and relatives. She claimed that there was increased torture, which was unbearable in 2005, and though her sister-in law were away from her, they used to call her and abuse her. She further alleged that she again came to India in 2006 even during which period, they used to harass and taunt her for not bringing dowry. She claimed that there was increased torture, which was unbearable in 2005, and though her sister-in law were away from her, they used to call her and abuse her. She further alleged that she again came to India in 2006 even during which period, they used to harass and taunt her for not bringing dowry. She further claimed that in June, 2006 when she came to India, the petitioner-her husband never appreciated her interaction with her family and tried his best to keep her away from her family. She alleged that from June, 2006 to October, 2007 they had several arguments over his parents and that her parents were mistreated several times when they visited them in Summer, 2007. The written report given to the police also alleged that the police at United States of America were also informed about the harassment and domestic violence. The second respondent further alleged that even here they were calling her on telephone and threatening and continuing the harassment. She also alleged some blank calls to be received from the petitioner-her husband. 5. After registration of the crime, the police appear to be investigating into the written report at which stage, the petitioner/the first accused/the husband came up with this petition, in which he reproduced what all has been alleged by the second respondent in her first information report, and questioned the same as not maintainable on the ground that no prima facie case is established against all the accused in law or on facts due to which any further proceeding with the investigation will serve no purpose and the petitioner claimed that the written report does not disclose any specific overt acts nor does it disclose any cruel intention or inhuman behaviour against the second respondent. The petitioner also claims that there are sufficient laws in the United States of America to protect the residents of that country if events such as those alleged in the written report happen within that territory and the second respondent could have obtained an injunction against the petitioner if such events happened. The petitioner also alleges that the written report is vitiated by inordinate delay and by the principle of double jeopardy and therefore, he desired that all proceedings in FIR No. 59 of 2008 of Malkajgiri Police Station to be quashed. 6.ln Crl. The petitioner also alleges that the written report is vitiated by inordinate delay and by the principle of double jeopardy and therefore, he desired that all proceedings in FIR No. 59 of 2008 of Malkajgiri Police Station to be quashed. 6.ln Crl. M.P.No.1550 of 2008,acounteraffidavit has been filed by the second respondent herein reiterating the allegations made in the written report to the police and claiming that the first information report clearly mentioned the various overt acts and harassment and cruelty and the description of the events discloses the cruel intention and inhuman behaviour of the opposite parties. The second respondent contended that in the light of the law laid down, in Sistu Pullam Raju v. State of A.P., by this Court, the question of quashing the first information report does not arise. The second respondent further stated that a petition is pending before the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana in the United States of America, at the instance of one Michele Woods with reference to Paternity test for her child etc., and the second respondent, therefore, desired to have the interim stay granted by this Court to be vacated and the investigation to be permitted to be proceeded with. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennal, wherein the Ape~ Court discussed, in detail, about the ordinary place of enquiry and trial in criminal matters and also the concept of cause of action. The question in issue before the Apex Court was about events which all were alleged to have happened at Nagercoil but not at Chennai, but on which events, criminal proceedings were sought to be conducted at Chennai and reproducing the those allegations to be in connection with any unlawful demand for property/dowry in contrast with the case before the Apex Court and when the second respondent was specific in her allegations that the demands for more money started immediately after the marriage, leading to her being subjected to cruelty even when she was at Hyderabad before going to the United States of America in July, 1997, it cannot be said to be a case of absence of any allegations at all. 10. 10. The learned counsel for the second respondent referred to Sistu Pullam Raju's case (1 supra), which was also referred to in the counter-affidavit of the second respondent, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court had in fact referred to both the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. Before laying down the principle that lack of territorial jurisdiction is not one of the parameters to be considered for quashing a case, the learned Single Judge observed that if not in the Court where the proceedings are initiated which lacks territorial jurisdiction, the allegations are to be tried before the appropriate Court elsewhere but by quashing the proceedings on the premise of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the complainant will be made remediless. While it is needless to replicate the entire decision again herein, the principles laid down undoubtedly come to the aid of the second respondent herein. 11. Coming to the contention that the information to the police at the United State of America, regarding the harassment and domestic violence, by the second respondent referred to in the written report to the police suggests the possibility of the petitioner being subjected to double jeopardy, admittedly, there is no proof before this Court, in these proceedings, to show that on such information by the second respondent, any proceedings or any investigation or any further action of any nature was initiated or continued or is pending. The police in the United States of America were not shown to have acted in any manner on the information by the second respondent. Even, otherwise, the constitutional protection against double jeopardy incorporated in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes into play only on a person being convicted or acquitted for the same offence and on his being subjected to the possibility of a conviction or acquittal again in any parallel or subsequent proceedings. That stage is not come, obviously, either in the United States of America or in India, in the present case. The suggested availability of alternative remedies in the United States of America or any delay in the information to the police do not disentitle the second respondent from setting the criminal Law into motion as per Indian Law. 12. That stage is not come, obviously, either in the United States of America or in India, in the present case. The suggested availability of alternative remedies in the United States of America or any delay in the information to the police do not disentitle the second respondent from setting the criminal Law into motion as per Indian Law. 12. It may be true that specific incidents involving the petitioner which speak for themselves about the harassment and cruelty due to the demand for additional dowry were not elaborated in the written report to the police by the second respondent, but apart from remembering that the first information report need not be an encyclopedia of all the events, any inartistic or ineffective drafting of the written report need not lead to any conclusion of absence of prima facie case• when the sequence of events spread over 11 years were alleged to have the basis only in the demand of additional dowry by the husband, in-laws and sisters-in-law. This is not to say that the Court had arrived at even a prima facie conclusion on the truth or otherwise' of the allegations of the second respondent ordenials of the petitioner. The discussion, on facts herein is confined to consider the justification for the request for quashing the 'further investigation into the crime and nothing more. On a close consideration of the facts and circumstances with reference to the case laws cited the court is therefore, of the opinion that this is not a case where a prima facie case can be said to be non-existent against the petitioner on the written report of the second respondent under investigation by the police and consequently the further action cannot be nipped in the bud. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed and any expression of opinion in any part of this order shall not act to the prejudice of either party in the further investigation or in any further proceedings that may arise and all the observations herein are purely confined to the merits of this Criminal Petition.