Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 484 (AP)

Bhogyam Rama Krishna v. State

2020-07-28

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quash of the F.I.R in Crime No.447 of 2020 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent State. 3. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.2900 of 2020 is A1 and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.2902 of 2020 are A2 & A3 in Crime No.447 of 2020 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station. 4. A1 is the husband of the de facto complainant. A2 & A3 are the mother and sister of A1. The de facto complainant lodged a report with the police alleging that A1 developed illegal contact with another woman and he has harassed her with a demand for additional dowry and subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty. It is also alleged that A2 & A3 also harassed her and subjected her to cruelty. The said report was registered as a case in Crime No.447 of 2020 by the Station House Officer of Mangalagiri Town Police Station and the case is now under investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the de facto complainant herself has voluntarily left the company of A1 and went away and A1 also got issued a legal notice earlier requesting her to join his company and resume their conjugal life and she did not turn up and thereafter she lodged the present report with all false allegations and as such the petitioners are implicated in a false case and in the said facts and circumstances of the case continuation of the present criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law and thereby prayed for quash of the said F.I.R against the petitioners. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the criminal petition would submit that the contents of the report lodged by the de facto complainant before the police, wherein she has clearly narrated all the events that took place, prima facie shows that the petitioners have subjected the de facto complainant to both physical and mental harassment with a demand for additional dowry and as such it cannot be said that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and that the allegations made against them are false and that the criminal proceedings launched against them amounts to abuse of process of law. He would submit that the case is still at the initial stage of the investigation and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be ascertained during the course of investigation and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 7. As rightly contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, a perusal of the F.I.R shows that the de facto complainant has clearly narrated various events relating to the manner in which she was subjected to both physical and mental harassment in the hands of the petitioners with a demand for additional dowry. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations is to be ascertained during the course of the investigation. At this stage, there is absolutely no prima facie material to arrive at any conclusion that the said allegations made against the petitioners are all false and that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and that criminal proceedings launched against the petitioners herein is an abuse of process of law. Whether the petitioners have harassed the de facto complainant and subjected her to cruelty as mentioned in the F.I.R is a disputed question of fact which is to be ascertained during the course of investigation. If at all the investigation officer collects any prima facie evidence in proof of the said allegations made against the petitioners, he has to file a charge sheet before the competent Court and it is for the said Court to ascertain whether the petitioners have committed any such offence or not, after considering the evidence adduced before it in the final adjudication of the case. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no material on record at this stage to substantiate the contentions of the petitioners that they have been implicated in a false case, this Court do not see any valid ground to interdict the investigation and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.447 of 2020 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station. 8. Therefore, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. However, as the offences that are registered against the petitioners herein are all punishable with less than seven years period of imprisonment, the investigation officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 . However, as the offences that are registered against the petitioners herein are all punishable with less than seven years period of imprisonment, the investigation officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 . Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.