Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 696 (AP)

K. Vinay Kumar v. State of Telangana

2016-12-09

SURESH KAIT

body2016
ORDER : Suresh Kait, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner/A-1 on bail in Crime No. 659 of 2016 of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 366, 420 and 354 of IPC. The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner with his parents viz., Kona Krishna and Kona Indira along with two unknown persons came to the de facto complainant by alighting from the car and asked her to show address of her house stating that they are intending to go to their house, upon which she sat in the car. Upon going to some distance, the de facto complainant was offered water mixed with glucose. After consuming the said water, she felt unconscious and slept with giddiness. In the evening at about 7.30 p.m., she regained consciousness. On looking around, she came to know that she was being taken to Jadcherla Highway. She got frightened, however, told them that she was intending to go to urinals, upon which they stopped the car near a hotel adjoining the highway. She called her father by taking phone from unknown woman and informed that incident happened and also about her location. When the aforesaid persons were trying to take her forcibly in the car, her senior paternal uncle, Sreenu and her brother Vikas came to her and rescued her. Thereafter, the aforesaid persons fled away from the scene of offence. The matter was compromised, however, on remembrance after regaining consciousness, the de facto-complainant recalled that after she lost consciousness on consuming the glucose water, she was kidnapped, her dress was changed and dressed with bridal dress and took photographs as if she was married with the petitioner, who also fabricated marriage certificate and threatened her that the same would be uploaded in social media. Accordingly on 20-10-2016 she lodged a. complaint against the incident dated 8-9-2016 culminated into the present FIR. 2. Mr. K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner and de facto-complainant loved each other for more than two years and they have expressed their intention of getting marriage before their elders, for which they refused. 2. Mr. K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner and de facto-complainant loved each other for more than two years and they have expressed their intention of getting marriage before their elders, for which they refused. The petitioner and de facto-complainant mutually understood of getting their marriage with the fond hope that parents would accept their marriage and receive and bless them after marriage. Accordingly, the petitioner and the de facto complainant approached Arya Samaj Mandir, Saidabad. They got married by performing the customs and rituals on 8-9-2016. After marriage, the petitioner and de facto-complainant proceeded to Jadcherla, however, in the meanwhile unknown persons chased them and forcibly took the de facto-complainant along with them. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner himself approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Hyderabad on 14-10-2016 and Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad on 15-10-2016 with a request to help him in getting his wife de facto-complainant back for leading matrimonial life but in vain. After-long gap of more than forty days after the marriage, the de facto-complainant was instigated by her parents and lodged complaint against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested on 12-11-2016 and since then he is in judicial custody. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Telangana has opposed the present petition and submitted that the petitioner forcibly married to de facto-complainant in a intoxication condition with the help of his parents and other associates, therefore, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature rendering him liable for the offences punishable under Section 366, 420 and 354 of IPC. Thus, the present petition may be dismissed. 5. He further submits that another Crime No. 752 of 2016 of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, was registered for the offences punishable under Section 448, 354, 427, 323 and 506 of IPC on the complaint lodged by the mother of the de facto-complainant against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is a habitual offender and the present petition may be dismissed. 6. The present petition filed by the petitioner is supported by marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Shradhabad, Saidabad, Hyderabad, bearing No. 1347/16, dated 8-9-2016, which proves that the marriage of the petitioner with the de facto-complainant had performed on 8-9-2016. Thus, the petitioner is a habitual offender and the present petition may be dismissed. 6. The present petition filed by the petitioner is supported by marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Shradhabad, Saidabad, Hyderabad, bearing No. 1347/16, dated 8-9-2016, which proves that the marriage of the petitioner with the de facto-complainant had performed on 8-9-2016. the present petition is also supported by the marriage photographs where one can make out that the de facto-complainant happily with her consent married with the petitioner. As stated in the petition, the petitioner and de facto-complainant are distant relations within the same community, however, their marriage was not acceptable to the parents of the de facto-complainant. The incident alleged to be occurred on 8-9-2016, however, complaint was lodged on 20-10-2016 for the reason that the de facto-complainant was not ready to make complaint against the petitioner, his parents and relatives, however, she might have been tortured by her parents, therefore, she succumbed thereto and filed the present complaint against the petitioner and others. The petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Hyderabad and Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad but they paid scant regard and become mute spectators and did not bothered what is happening in the society. It will not be out of place to mention here that even in the present days, inter-caste marriages are not acceptable so easily in the society, if marriage is without the consent of the parents. But some times even marriage within the community is also not acceptable if the parents of either side do not like the same. 7. In the context of present situation of the case on hand, both of them are major and they married with their own choice. Now it is the duty of the Police to give protection and shelter to such couple. But in the present case, despite the information with the police that they got married and to that effect certificate was issued by the Arya Samad Shradhabad, Saidabad, Hyderabad, as mentioned above, this is not only the present case registered against the petitioner but another Crime No. 752 of 2016 of Miyapur Police Station, Hyderabad also registered against the petitioner at the instance of the mother of the de facto complainant. 8. 8. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner married with the de facto-complainant, as they loved each other and they are from distant relations, therefore, I am satisfied in the present case that there was no coercion an threat in the marriage held on 8-9-2016 between the petitioner and de facto-complainant. The photographs shows that the petitioner and de facto-complainant happily married in Arya Samaj Shradhabad, Saidabad, Hyderabad. 9. In view of the above backdrop, though the Court should not interfere with the investigation by the Police, however, in the present case, I deem it appropriate to issue directions to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Hyderabad to take photographs of marriage, which is at page Nos. 20 to 22, into possession and send for FSL and obtain opinion and file report before this Court positively on or before 30-12-2016. 10. Keeping in view the averments made in the present petition and submission of the counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- [Rs. Five Thousand only] with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of IX-Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukkatpally at Miyapur. 11. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. 13. Before parting with this bail order, I hereby direct the Director General of Police, State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh to issue "Standing Order" that if marriage has taken place, proof of the same is available and both are majors, no FIR shall be registered until and unless conspicuously it is established on record that such of the marriage was performed due to propelling causative factor s of concomitant indices like intoxication, pressure, threat, coercion, undue influence and complicity of the indictable acts. 14. I further direct both the Director General of Police to issue immediate Standing Orders to all the Police Stations in their States that if FIR is lodged on the complaint of either side parents that their daughter is absconding/kidnapped etc., and the Police after investigation came to know that the marriage had performed mutually by consent between the two and they are major, then the Investigating Officer shall take appropriate steps to file final report and get the FIR closed before the concerned court. 15. 15. In view of the afore backdrop, though not only for the purpose of the case in hand, let the Standing Orders be issued and communicated to all the Police Stations in the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh so that such type of false cases may not be registered in the society in future and the youth should not be harassed in the hands of parents and the police. 16. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Hyderabad is directed to take photographs of marriage, which is at page Nos. 20 to 22 into possession from the petitioner and send to FSL for examination and opinion and file report before this Court positively on or before 30-12-2016. Re-notify the matter on 30-12-2016.