Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 361 (AP)

Chakka Venkata Satyanarayana v. State of A. P.

2019-12-09

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2019
ORDER : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash all further proceedings in Crime No. 276 of 2019 of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District, particularly against the Accused Nos. 2 to 5. 2. This Court has heard Sri K.V. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The petitioners before this Court are the father, mother, brother and the brother's wife (sister-in-law) of the 1st accused. 4. A private complaint was filed against the accused persons alleging offences under Sections 323, 354, 498-A, 506, 59 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Later, cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the matter was referred to the police for further investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri K.V. Vijay Kumar essentially argued on two grounds that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and that there are no specific instances against the present set of petitioners, which would warrant taking of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, 2007 (3) ALT(Crl.) 385 (SC) : (2007) 12 SCC 641 and argued that the delay affords an opportunity to the complainant to improve and embellish the case and sometimes even make up fabrications. Relying on the paragraph-9 of the said judgment learned counsel submits that in cases of delay the Court should view the allegation with suspicion. If the delay is not properly explained, learned counsel for the petitioners argued it is fatal to the case. According to him the private complaint is only filed in March-2019, whereas the alleged offences commenced in the year 2007 itself. He also points out that when a private complaint is filed legal advice is given and embellishment of the complaint cannot also be ruled out. Therefore, learned counsel also argues that this Court should quash the proceedings at this stage itself. He also points out that when a private complaint is filed legal advice is given and embellishment of the complaint cannot also be ruled out. Therefore, learned counsel also argues that this Court should quash the proceedings at this stage itself. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Preeti Gupta and others v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2010 (3) ALT(Crl.) 99 (SC) : (2010) 7 SCC 667 , learned counsel would argue that the allegations in the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection, particularly where the family members are roped in without any clear details being given of their involvement in the alleged complaint. Basing on these two grounds, learned counsel argues that there are no specific allegations as far as the present set of petitioners are concerned and that the delay is also fatal. 6. In reply to this learned Public Prosecutor points out that there is no delay at all in this case. According to him there were a series of offences commencing from 2017 and ending with the case said to have been registered on 31.01.2019. Learned Public Prosecutor points out that upto this period of time the complainant did not approach the police, thereafter she has given an explanation for lodging of the complaint, in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the private complaint, that is filed. Learned Public Prosecutor therefore submits that the delay in this case is not very long for it to be presumed that there are embellishments or fabrications. Apart from that he also points out that a reading of the complaint would show that there are verifiable details and issues which can be decided during the course of the investigation. He points out various dates that are mentioned about the incidents and about the financial transactions also. Apart from that he points out that these issues about the financial transactions are also capable of being determined during the course of investigation. The eviction or the vacating of the matrimonial house in March 2008 is also a verifiable fact. Learned Public Prosecutor also points out that the details of the mediators are given and the date of alleged meeting with the mediator is also given as 04.03.2018, which would show that this can also be verified. The eviction or the vacating of the matrimonial house in March 2008 is also a verifiable fact. Learned Public Prosecutor also points out that the details of the mediators are given and the date of alleged meeting with the mediator is also given as 04.03.2018, which would show that this can also be verified. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor points out that there are specific instances, which are mentioned about the behavior of the present petitioners, who are Accused Nos. 2 to 5. He points out that this is not the case of omnibus allegations but this is a case of verifiable data based on material available in the complaint. He points out, for example, that on 06.01.2018 she came to the matrimonial house at Ongole, wherein comments were made about the failure to pay dowry. On 07.01.2018 the 4th and 5th accused brought her onto the road in front of the parents' house. Thereafter, in March-2018 the house in Bangalore was evicted by the 1st accused and his parents. In paragraph-18 of the private complaint, learned Public Prosecutor points out, a specific allegation is made that Accused No. 2 (father of the 1st accused), did not accept the immovable property and wanted cash. In November-2018 it is mentioned that one Sri Desu Seshagiri Rao, was sent to demand for dowry. He also stated that on 31.01.2019 a false case was registered against the complainant, her parents and relatives. Based on all of the above learned Public Prosecutor argues that quashing of the FIR at this stage is not called for. 7. This Court after examining the submissions made by both the learned counsel notices that there is no dispute about the law that is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but the question of applicability of the said law to the facts of this case is to be seen. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, this is not a case where a sweeping statement is made that the petitioners was harassed mentally and physically by the family. A series of events are mentioned, some of the dates and the incidents are matters which can be verified and checked during the course of the investigation. Some allegations are also made against the present set of petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are only general omnibus allegations. A series of events are mentioned, some of the dates and the incidents are matters which can be verified and checked during the course of the investigation. Some allegations are also made against the present set of petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are only general omnibus allegations. Quashing of the proceedings, particularly at the stage of FIR, would require high degree of possibility that the entire case is false and that it is inherently improbable. This case on hand does not fit within the parameters of inherent improbability or a case where the material does not make out a prima facie case of a cognizable offence. The allegations made in the complaint do have some weight. The FIR was also registered only on 11.10.2019 and the Criminal Petition to quash has been filed within a month of the same. 9. This Court is of the opinion that no grounds made out or the points urged for quashing of the proceedings at this stage. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 10. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall also stand dismissed.