Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 535 (AP)

Perla Gopinath Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-03-14

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2023
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 15 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur. 2. Originally, a case in Crime No. 47 of 2020 of Proddatur III Town Police Station been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Thereafter, police conducted investigation and filed final report stating that the death of the deceased is a suicide and the same is without abetment or instigation by anybody. In the absence of any evidence to that extent, the police observed that there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC as per the facts and circumstances of the case and no case is made out against the alleged accused and it is a fit case to refer as ‘action drop’. 3. The final report has been placed before the Judicial Magistrate concerned and accordingly the learned Magistrate issued notice to the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed protest petition on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur. The learned Magistrate, after examining the defacto complainant and other witnesses, opined that there was prima facie case and took cognizance of the said offence and issued summons to the petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even accepting the averments contained in the sworn statements to be true, no prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC would be made out as against the petitioner herein for the reason that in order to attract offence under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that all the ingredients of Section 107 IPC have to be satisfied, but on a perusal of allegations in the sworn statements goes to show that, absolutely, none of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC has been made out. He further submitted that going by the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, there is absolutely nothing alleged as against the petitioner herein, but, in the statements recorded by the learned Magistrate, there are improvements made by the defacto complainant and other witnesses, which were not even stated in 161 Cr.P.C. statements. He further submitted that going by the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, there is absolutely nothing alleged as against the petitioner herein, but, in the statements recorded by the learned Magistrate, there are improvements made by the defacto complainant and other witnesses, which were not even stated in 161 Cr.P.C. statements. He submitted that even accepting the improvements to be true, it cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses are silent to that extent. Basing on the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to quash the proceedings in the above PRC. 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the allegations in the statements of witnesses recorded by the learned Magistrate categorically go to show that prima facie the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC are established. He further contended that there is a specific averment to that extent that at the instance of the accused herein, the deceased had committed suicide, and truth of otherwise of the said accusation has to be gone into during course of trial, and this Court, in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not be in a position to conduct a roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact. 6. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submissions made by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Heard. Perused the record. 8. A perusal of record goes to show that it is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner challenged the very taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without there being any jurisdiction and the same is not in accordance with law. This Court, after hearing both the parties, passed a detailed order on 28.07.2022 in Criminal Revision Case No. 192 of 2022 observing that this Court feels that no interference is warranted against the impugned order of taking cognizance for the said offences and summoning the accused and hence, the said order does not call for any interference. It is also observed that except raising the contention with regard to taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has not raised any other point. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case No. 192 of 2022 was dismissed by this Court. It is also observed that except raising the contention with regard to taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has not raised any other point. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case No. 192 of 2022 was dismissed by this Court. Against the said dismissal order, the petitioner herein preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8660 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By an order dated 26.09.2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. With the said observation, the SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed the present petition questioning the same on merits that even accepting the entire accusation to be true, no offence has been made out as against the petitioner herein. 9. According to the sworn statement of the defacto complainant her father was having a petrol filling station near old bus stand. The land where the petrol filling station is situated belongs to her cousin brother i.e. accused, and the license of the said petrol filling station is in the name of her late father. The accused compelled her father and took share in the petrol filling station and also made her father to enter into lease with one Mallikarjun and subsequently prevented him to enter into the petrol filling station. Before 2012, her late father gave a report against the alleged accused before II Town Police Station but the police refused to take the report. Thereafter, mediation before elders was held and 49% of the share was given to the alleged accused in the year 2012. On 5th day after demise of her father, the alleged accused came to their house and stated to her mother in her presence that “you have no business to involve in running of petrol filling station and I will send some papers to be duly signed by you.” Thereafter, some elders approached her on behalf of the accused and asked her to give their 51% share to the alleged accused otherwise she would face consequences. The alleged accused called to her mother and threatened that she had to face consequences in future. She made a call to her and cried. On that, on 06.02.2020 night, she started from Hyderabad and reached Proddatur on 7th morning. The alleged accused called to her mother and threatened that she had to face consequences in future. She made a call to her and cried. On that, on 06.02.2020 night, she started from Hyderabad and reached Proddatur on 7th morning. Her mother shared with her that the alleged accused is sending persons by saying that he will send poison and to consume the same and die, so that he will get the said petrol filling station. On 07.02.2020 at 04.00 A.M. their servant called her and awaked her and stated that her mother is complaining that she was having burning sensation in her stomach. Then, she went to her mother and asked why she is having burning sensation then she informed that she consumed acid as the alleged accused is repeatedly asked her to drink and die. At 02.45 P.M., she died while in Ambulance. After demise of her mother, she gave written report to III Town Police Station, Proddatur and after completion of investigation, police did not furnish any copies in respect of investigation. Hence, after receiving summons from the Court, she filed this protest petition for further investigation. The other two witnesses also deposed in the lines as that of defacto complainant. 10. A perusal of the sworn statements goes to show that the mother of the defacto complainant was residing at Proddatur. The family owns a petrol filling station near old bus stand. In connection the petrol filling station, there are issues between the family of the defacto complainant and accused. The license of the said petrol filling station lies with the father of the defacto complainant namely B. Gurivi Reddy. For the past 48 years, the father of the defacto complainant was running the filling station. Since 2012 onwards, there is a dispute between accused and the father of the defacto complainant with regard to the petrol filling station for the reason that the license of the petrol filling station to be transferred in the name of accused. In the year 2012, the father of the defacto complainant gave a share of 49% to the alleged accused. In the year 2017, the accused is alleged to have compelled the father of the defacto complainant to give the petrol filling station on lease. Accordingly the petrol filling station was given on lease to one Mallikarjun. In the year 2012, the father of the defacto complainant gave a share of 49% to the alleged accused. In the year 2017, the accused is alleged to have compelled the father of the defacto complainant to give the petrol filling station on lease. Accordingly the petrol filling station was given on lease to one Mallikarjun. Only because of the compulsion of the accused, out of the said lease transaction, the father of the defacto complainant was not getting proper share. Thereafter, the father of the defacto complainant wanted to interfere with the affairs of the petrol filling station, the accused stopped him from interfering into petrol filling station. In respect of that, the father of the defacto complainant gave a complaint against the accused before the III Town Police Station, Proddatur, but the police refused to register the case as against the accused. 11. On 5th day of demise of the father of the defacto complainant, it is alleged that all the accused had gone to the house of mother of the defacto complainant and threatened her that she had no business to enter into the petrol filling station and they would send some papers which are to be duly signed by the mother of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the defacto complainant and her elder sister called the accused stating that they would negotiate after the obsequies of the father of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, in the year 2019, IOC (Indian Oil Corporation) called the defacto complainant and her sister for re-constitution of license issued in favour of the later father of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant along with her sister transferred 51% of the share in the name of their mother i.e. the deceased herein. They opened a joint account in the name of the deceased. In connection with that, there is harassment made out by the accused to the deceased to sign the papers in favour of the accused. Even calls were made to the deceased threatening her. Some of the elders approached the defacto complainant to transfer 51% of share to the accused. One Chandra Sekhar Reddy @ Chinna, on the request of the accused, approached the deceased to sign the said agreement and threatened her not to enter into the premises of the petrol filling station, for which, she would be paid Rs. Some of the elders approached the defacto complainant to transfer 51% of share to the accused. One Chandra Sekhar Reddy @ Chinna, on the request of the accused, approached the deceased to sign the said agreement and threatened her not to enter into the premises of the petrol filling station, for which, she would be paid Rs. 40,000/- per month, but they did not sign on the said agreement. In respect of that, there were disputes between them. The defacto complainant started from Hyderabad on 06.02.2020 night and reached Proddatur on 7th morning. The deceased shared with her that the accused was sending some papers and given poison to the deceased and make her to consume the same so that they would be getting the petrol filling station. The complainant has consoled the deceased that she would talk to the officials of the IOC and convince them. On 07.02.2020 when the deceased was feeling scared, at about 4.00 A.M. the servant of the defacto complainant one Beebi went and awaked the defacto complainant stating that the deceased was having burning sensation in her stomach, on questioning, the deceased stated that she consumed acid as the alleged accused asking her to drink and die. Thereafter, at about 2.45 p.m. the deceased died in the ambulance while shifting to Government Hospital. 12. So, there is averment to the extent that the deceased stated to the defacto complainant that she consumed the said poison because of the harassment meted out by the accused and repeatedly insisting her to drink poison and die. She made the said statement for the first time before the Court. Admittedly, going by the factual aspects in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, absolutely no such averment is contained therein earlier. Obviously, the said statement would amount an improvement. In respect of the averment that the servant of the deceased immediately after the incident going to the defacto complainant and stating with regard to the burning sensation in stomach complained by the deceased and then immediately the defacto complainant went to the deceased, who allegedly stated that she consumed poison. According to the servant maid one Beebi, she never stated in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the deceased had consumed poison at the instance of the accused persons, but surprisingly the said servant has not been examined by the defacto complainant as her witness before the learned Magistrate. 13. According to the servant maid one Beebi, she never stated in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the deceased had consumed poison at the instance of the accused persons, but surprisingly the said servant has not been examined by the defacto complainant as her witness before the learned Magistrate. 13. On the contrary, learned counsel for 2nd respondent submitted that basing on the averments stated in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, once police have come to a conclusion that there is no offence made out, they filed a final report. Once final report has been filed, statements of the witnesses would be redundant. As of now, the material available on record is only the sworn statements of the defacto complainant and other witnesses examined before the Court. Except the said material, no other material can be looked into at this stage in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Going by the said statement of defacto complainant and other statements, there is an accusation at this stage which prima-facie goes to show that the deceased had committed suicide at the instigation of the accused. The defense alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner could be agitated before the trial Court during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court would not be in a position to appreciate the evidence by going into the disputed questions of fact. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 15. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.