Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1045 (AP)

Medari Wilson Raju v. State of A. P.

2013-11-20

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2013
ORDER C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 206 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, Khammam District. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations in the charge sheet would disclose that the marriage of the petitioner with the informant took place on 12.02.2010. At the time of marriage, the parents of the informant gave ` 2,00,000/- cash, two tulas gold and other house hold articles as dowry. After marriage, both of them lead a happy marital life for a period of two months and thereafter, the petitioner started harassing the informant to get additional dowry from her parents. A panchayat was held in the presence of Thadikela Babu Rao and Banoth Ramudu, wherein the petitioner was warned not to harass the informant. But the petitioner did not change his attitude and continued his harassment, due to which, the informant left the accused and started staying with her parents. Though mediations took place, there was no change in the attitude of the petitioner. Thereafter, LW3 was sent to the house of the petitioner for convincing him, but the petitioner is alleged to have demanded the informant to come to his house only with the demanded amount. Basing on these allegations, a case in Cr. No. 21 of 2011 of Khanapuram Police Station, Khammam District came to be registered against the petitioner. The police investigated into the case and filed a charge sheet, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that even accepting the allegations as levelled in the charge sheet to be true, no offence is made out against the accused. According to him, except the statement of the victim, there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime. The statements of LWs. 5 to 9 are only hearsay and the same does not in any way inculpate the petitioner with the crime. 4. According to him, except the statement of the victim, there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime. The statements of LWs. 5 to 9 are only hearsay and the same does not in any way inculpate the petitioner with the crime. 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent opposed the petition stating that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and sought for dismissal of the petition on the said ground alone. 5. A perusal of the material placed before the Court would indicate that earlier the petitioner filed Crl. P. No. 7986 of 2012 seeking quashing of the proceedings. At the time when the said matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of the Court to withdraw the petition with a liberty to approach the trial Court for discharge. Accordingly, the said criminal petition was dismissed as withdraw with a liberty to file a discharge petition before the trial Court, if the charges are not already framed. 6. Without making an application for discharge before the trial Court, the petitioner came up with the present application on the same grounds. The present criminal petition also refer to the dismissal of the earlier application, but the reason mentioned for withdrawal was that the 2nd respondent was ready to compromise the matter before the elders. 7. Though the earlier application was withdrawn with a liberty to make an application before the trial Court for discharge, but without making any efforts of filing an application for discharge before the trial Court, the present application is filed. In Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and others (1) 2011(3) ALT (Crl.) 109 (SC) : 2011(6) SCJ 305 : 2011(2) ALD Crl. 948(SC), the Apex Court dealing with the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and also the effect of the petitioner/accused coming to the Court with unclean hands held as under: Though the High Court has inherent power and its scope is very wide, it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in exceptional cases. Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely Courts of law, but also Courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely Courts of law, but also Courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. The inherent power of the High Court is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the Courts subordinate to it. These powers are partly administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under Section 482 is discretionary, therefore, the High Court may refuse to exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with clean hands. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment referred to above, I am of the view that the present application has to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. 9. Apart from that, the statement of L.W. 1 would clearly indicate that the accused harassed the informant for additional dowry. Her statement further discloses that the petitioner used to beat her with a demand to get money from her parents. Though the panchayathdars blamed the petitioner for his conduct and warned him to change his attitude, there was no change in his attitude. In fact, the statement of L.W. 3 would clearly disclose that when he went to the house of the petitioner for convincing him, he denied to take back the informant to his conjugal society stating that he will allow the informant to enter the house only when she beings the demanded amount. Even if the statements of LWs. 5 to 9 are hearsay, the statement of L.W. 1 is enough to come to a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. 10. In view of the discussion made above, I see no grounds to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 206 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, Khammam District. 11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand dismissed.