Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 103 (AP)

Maddineni Aruna Kumari v. Chirumamilla Ramesh

2019-06-28

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2019
ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 63 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 209 of IPC. 2. The first respondent- Chairumamilla Ramesh filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate alleging that his marriage was performed with one Aruna Kumari/petitioner/Accused No. 3, who is the daughter of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 as per Hindu Customs and Rites on 9-3-2008 in Brundavan Housing Association Kalyana Mandapam, Kavali Town, Nellore District. At the time of marriage, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 presented gold ornaments to petitioner/Accused Nos. 3 and provided silver pooja articles and house hold items like iron safe, double cot with bed and pillows, sofa set and other house hold utensils. Petitioner/Accused No. 3 gave birth to a body boy in the month of June 2009 in Bollineni Hospital, Kavali. At the time when petitioner/Accused No. 3 left to Tirupati for delivery of child, she carried all her gold ornaments, by that time the marital relationship between the complainant and the petitioner/Accused No. 3 was disturbed. Petitioner herein/Accused No. 3 after giving birth to a son, was not inclined to come and join the first respondent/husband in the matrimonial house at Tirupati and further she demanded to return the household articles and silver pooja articles. The first respondent/husband filed a petition seeking divorce from his wife and she in-turn filed a petition seeking maintenance for minor son. While the things stood thus, as the petitioner/Accused No. 3 demanded to return the household articles and pooja items which she left at her matrimonial house, because she send the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are her parents, the complainant gave the household articles and silver pooja items on 4-7-2010 at Tirupati and the same was reduced into writing on Rs.100/- Non-judicial Stamp paper signed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and attested by two witnesses namely S. Nagasrinivas, J. Subramanyam and C. Vijayabhaskar. 3. The complainant/husband submitted that even after handing over the said articles, the petitioner has taken away gold jewels, she again issued a notice to return gold items giving a list of the same which comes to 30 1/2 sovereigns and silver items, household articles and utensils giving their list. 3. The complainant/husband submitted that even after handing over the said articles, the petitioner has taken away gold jewels, she again issued a notice to return gold items giving a list of the same which comes to 30 1/2 sovereigns and silver items, household articles and utensils giving their list. The complainant submitted that, contrary to the recitals in the agreement written on the stamp paper and signed by Accused Nos. 1 and 2, the Accused No. 3/petitioner herein once again made demand that she has not received any of her articles. In view of the facts narrated above, petitioner herein/accused No. 3 by making false claim committed criminal breach of trust and made a false claim which are punishable under Articles ( sic Section) 406 and 209 of I.P.C. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 207 of 2018 in O.S. No. 263 of 2012 and the suit was decreed by the Court on contest vide decree and judgment dated 30-1-2019. Now, the contention of this petitioner before this Court is that, when the suit is decreed, question of making false claim does not arise and a copy of the decree is also placed on record by he petitioner in support of her contention. Whereas, learned counsel for the first respondent/husband contended that an appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment and the Court granted stay of execution, consequently, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. 5. In a private complaint by the first respondent, he requested the Court to forward the case to the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.V.U. Campus Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, register a case, investigate into the matter and file a report in the interest of justice. 6. On the basis of complaint, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class took the case on file against the petitioner alone while dismissing the complaint against Accused Nos. 1 and 2, after recording statements of L.W. 1 and 2, for the offences punishable under Section 209 I.P.C. by order dated 6-3-2013. 6. On the basis of complaint, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class took the case on file against the petitioner alone while dismissing the complaint against Accused Nos. 1 and 2, after recording statements of L.W. 1 and 2, for the offences punishable under Section 209 I.P.C. by order dated 6-3-2013. Though the Magistrate took the case against this petitioner on file for the offence punishable under Section 209 I.P.C. the very basis for such claim is pendency of suit O.S. No. 263 of 2012 on the file of District Judge, Nellore, when the suit itself is decreed, it is difficult to conclude at this stage that the claim of the petitioner is false. Therefore, prima facie, the material on record discloses that the petitioner did commit no offence at this stage, prima facie. 7. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 the Apex Court considered in detail the provisions of Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted "in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) 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.? 8. Therefore, in view of guideline No. 3 in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 (supra), where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 9. Since, the appeal is pending before competent court and if, for any reason, the appellate court concludes that the claim is false, the petitioner is at liberty to renew her request, subject to permissibility under law. 10. With he above direction, the criminal petition is Allowed. 11. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.