Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 29 (AP)

Boppana Surendra v. State of A. P.

2020-01-22

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused to quash all further proceedings relating to Crime No. 230 of 2019 of Pattabhipuram Police Station. The petitioner before this Court is Accused No. 2 in Crime No. 230 of 2019. 2. This Crime No. 230 of 2019 was registered on 02.07.2019 for an alleged offence that took place on 31.12.2018. Sri V. Satyanarayana Parasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that this is a case of pure abuse of the process of the Court. He points out that a crime was registered on 02.07.2019 for an alleged offence that occurred on 31.12.2018. Relying on para-5 of the FIR, learned counsel points out that the police station is 2 kms. away from the scene of offence. He says that there is absolutely no ground to explain the delay. He also points-out that the case falls within the exception of an inherently improbable case. He points-out that a reading of the complaint shows that the offence occurred on 31.12.2018 on which date a judgment was to be delivered in C.C. No. 237 of 2018. Thereafter, after the delivery of the judgment at about 12 noon, the accused-supposedly attacked the complainant and threatened them that they would post some obscene pictures on the internet of the daughter of the complainant if they do not withdraw the case. Learned counsel points-out that there is no question of "withdraw" of the case as the judgment was delivered on that date. Apart from that learned senior counsel also points-out that there has been a history of prior litigation between the parties to the marriage. He relies upon the order in FCOP No. 220 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court cum XII Additional District Court, Guntur, which relied upon a judgment and decree of divorce passed by the Superior Court of California. Learned counsel submits that the Indian Court accepted that the marriage between the parties as validly dissolved by Superior Court of California. He also points out that the petitioner has a history of prior litigation and therefore with a view to wreck vengeance the present application has been filed. He points-out that as the petitioner is resident of America a lot of pressure is mounted on the police and other parties to cancel the passport and to prosecute the petitioner. 3. He also points out that the petitioner has a history of prior litigation and therefore with a view to wreck vengeance the present application has been filed. He points-out that as the petitioner is resident of America a lot of pressure is mounted on the police and other parties to cancel the passport and to prosecute the petitioner. 3. In reply to this, learned Public Prosecutor submits that quashing of the complaint at FIR stage is not called for. He points out that 6 witnesses were already examined and that the crime should be allowed to go to its logical conclusion. 4. Smt. M. Radha, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also argues on similar lines. She submits that merely because there was earlier litigation between the parties it cannot be presumed that this offence did not occur at all. It is her contention that for quashing a case at FIR stage there should be a clear and categorical material of gross abuse of the process of the Court. She submits that in the present case there is no such material available of any gross abuse. She also states that it is not "inherently improbable" and in view of the bad blood between the parties the occurrence of the incident cannot be ruled out. 5. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that there is no dispute about the proposition of law, that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle the civil dispute. As pointed out, the parties to the marriage were involved in a protracted legal battle. A judgment was passed in 2008 by the Superior Court at California dissolving the marriage between the present petitioner and the daughter of the complainant. This was also recognized in FCOP No. 220 of 2016. Learned counsel points out that both the parties were represented by their respective counsels before the Superior Court and thereafter the decree was passed. Apart from that this Court also notices that there is virtually no explanation forthcoming for the delay. An offence, that occurred in December-2018, was reported in July, 2019. A reading of the complaint also shows that the alleged offence took place after the judgment was pronounced. The parties, who were aware of the court proceedings/court procedures, would have reacted immediately, in the opinion of this Court, if such an event occurred. An offence, that occurred in December-2018, was reported in July, 2019. A reading of the complaint also shows that the alleged offence took place after the judgment was pronounced. The parties, who were aware of the court proceedings/court procedures, would have reacted immediately, in the opinion of this Court, if such an event occurred. A reading of the complaint shows that the threat was made to the accused stating that they would post nude pictures of the girl on the internet. If such a serious threat was actually held out the law expects the complainant to act promptly, since the dignity of a woman is at stake. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no reason given for the delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the distance between the police station and the scene of offence is 2 kms. even as per the column No. 5 of the FIR. The reason given for the delay in Col. No. 8 of the FIR is due to a threat from the accused. Even this threat is not borne out by the record. Learned counsel also rightly pointed out that the petitioner is habituated in complaining. Even the judicial officer, who acquitted the present petitioner, was the subject matter of a complaint and a Writ Petition No. 8298 of 2019. The said Writ Petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that the aggrieved party did not challenge against the said judgment in question and on the other hand has made a complaint against the judicial officer. While this may not be a very relevant for deciding the present case, still as pointed out by the learned counsel, this is an issue which would show that the complainant has knowledge of the legal procedures. 6. Despite having adequate knowledge of Courts and courts' procedures, the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained, let alone satisfactorily explained. This Court is therefore is of the opinion that a case law on the subject of delay would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. Delay has been recognised to cause embellishments, improvements etc. This is the reason why the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India always sounds a note of caution when cases of which filed with delay and directs that the complaint should be looked into carefully. Delay has been recognised to cause embellishments, improvements etc. This is the reason why the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India always sounds a note of caution when cases of which filed with delay and directs that the complaint should be looked into carefully. If the present complaint is looked at on the basis of the existing case law and against the back drop of previous litigation/history of parties, it is clear that there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay. This Court, therefore, holds that this is a fit case in which the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised to quash all further proceedings. The case falls within the category of inherently improbable case as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No. 230 of 2019 of Pattabhipuram Police Station are quashed. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.