Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 48 (AP)

Peteti Prabhakara Rao v. State of A. P.

2020-01-23

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT : U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners-A2 to A5 seek to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 533 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku which was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 406 IPC. 2. A1 is the husband of de facto complainant. A2 is the father, A3 is the mother, and A4 is the brother of A1 and A5 is the wife of A4 and A6 and A7 are their relations. The private complaint of the complainant was referred to police of Tanuku Rural Police Station who registered it as case in Cr. No. 65/2011 and after investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A7 which was taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 IPC by the trial Court. Hence, the instant petition to quash the proceedings. 3. Pending the petition, the petitioner-A3 died. 4. Heard Smt. D. Lalitha Prasad, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent. No representation for 2nd respondent. 5. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for petitioners is that with the same allegations as levelled in the present C.C. the de facto complainant also filed a complaint in DVC No. 4/2011 against the present petitioners and some others and after the full-fledged enquiry, learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku dismissed the complaint on 04.02.2015 holding that the complaint allegations are false. Thereafter A6 and A7 filed Crl. P. No. 12314/2011 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 533/2011 against them and this Court considering the dismissal of DVC No. 4/2011 allowed the Crl. P. and quashed the proceedings against them. Learned counsel thus submits that in terms of the said order the criminal proceedings may be quashed against the present petitioners also. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in this petition to allow? 8. I gave my anxious consideration to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. The complaint allegations in C.C. No. 533/2011, it must be said, are prototype to the allegations in DVC No. 4/2011. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in this petition to allow? 8. I gave my anxious consideration to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. The complaint allegations in C.C. No. 533/2011, it must be said, are prototype to the allegations in DVC No. 4/2011. Then coming to the findings rendered by the learned Magistrate in DVC No. 4/2011 as against the allegations of harassment and domestic violence, in points 2 to 4 learned Magistrate dealt with all the allegations. In Paragraph No. 19 of the judgment, the learned Magistrate dealt with the allegation of A1 and in-laws demanding PW-1 (complainant) additional dowry and harassing her physically and mentally and necking out her. Learned Magistrate observed that PW-1 herself admitted in the cross-examination that after demanding dowry at the marriage of her sister, her husband himself took PW-1 to her in-laws house. Another allegation that her mother-in-law demanded her to bring provisions from her parental home is concerned, PW-1 stated that a Panchayat was held at the instance of her parents before the elders and on their advice her husband set up a separate family in the same house for which her parents-in-law allotted two rooms. Learned Magistrate observed that when PW-1 and her husband (A1) were living separately, where was the question of respondents 2 to 10 (including A2 to A5 in this case) harassing them. Learned Magistrate further observed that there was no mention about the specific harassment. Then in paragraph No. 20 of the judgment learned Magistrate observed that PW-1 herself admitted that there was no dispute with her husband and he was innocent, but due to interference of her in-laws the disputes arose between them and there was no cordial relationship between them at present. It was further observed that even there was no violence from R1 so also from respondents 4 to 10, but she initiated proceedings against them also and there were no specific attributions against respondents 2 and 3. Learned Magistrate further observed that even though she filed cases against respondents 1 to 10, she used to visit her in-laws house. PW-2 who is her brother deposed that he did not know personally as to what happened in the matrimonial home of PW-1. Learned Magistrate further observed that even though she filed cases against respondents 1 to 10, she used to visit her in-laws house. PW-2 who is her brother deposed that he did not know personally as to what happened in the matrimonial home of PW-1. The trial Court observed that it was enough to say that even PW-2 knew the incident he did not question them and therefore, no incident took place. Further, PW-1 admitted that she herself deposited her gold ornaments in the bank and now she prays for return of the gold ornaments from respondents. She has not elicited anything from RW-1 to RW-3 that they caused harassment. Ultimately the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that PW-1 has come to the Court with false allegations with regard to the domestic violence. Then the allegation of demand of additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- is concerned, the trial Court observed that there is no scintilla of evidence in that regard. The trial Court held that the allegation of demand of additional dowry was an omnibus allegation and that she came to the Court with unclean hands. On all these observations and findings, the trial Court dismissed DVC No. 4/2011. When the judgment in DVC No. 4/2011 is carefully analyzed, PW-1 could not substantiate the allegations of domestic violence. As stated supra, the allegations in the present C.C. and DVC are one and the same and the evidence is also more or less identical. 9. In the decision State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) AIR SC 604, the Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines as to when the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court. They are: “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 F.I.R. 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. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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 uncontroverted 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 F.I.R. 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.” Thus, as can be seen, when criminal proceedings are manifestly initiated with mala-fide intention, such criminal proceedings can be quashed. In the instant case, she instituted domestic violence case with all false averments which was ended in acquittal. With the same allegations the complainant launched criminal prosecution under Section 498A IPC with a malicious intention to see that the accused are harassed. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 533/2011, in my considered view, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It should be noted that this Court in Crl. P. No. 12314/2011 has already quashed the proceedings against A6 and A7 considering the judgment in DVC No. 4/2011. 10. Accordingly, this Crl. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 533/2011, in my considered view, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It should be noted that this Court in Crl. P. No. 12314/2011 has already quashed the proceedings against A6 and A7 considering the judgment in DVC No. 4/2011. 10. Accordingly, this Crl. P. is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 533 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku are hereby quashed against the petitioners-A2, A4 and A5. 11. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.