Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 957 (AP)

K. Mahammad Rafi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-07-03

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2023
ORDER : This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by A.2 and A.3 seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.308 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 448 and 323 I.P.C. pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu. 2. For petitioners, it is contended that the allegations are omnibus and there are no specific overt acts attributed. It has become practice of woman to rope in all the family members in cases under Sections 498-A I.P.C. by implicating them falsely so as to achieve their illegal demands. After filing of the charge sheet, the victim woman and her husband/A.1 have been living together amicably. 1st petitioner/A.2 works in Neeti Ayog. Continuance of the proceedings would tarnish his reputation and effect his employment. First Information Report and the charge sheet and the material filed along with it do not prima facie indicate commission of any offence and therefore, case against them shall be quashed. 3. Second respondent is the de facto complainant. Despite service of notice, none entered appearance on her behalf. 4. For 1st respondent-State, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued stating that the material on record indicated prima facie case and the disputed allegations are a matter for trial and no case is made out to quash the proceedings and seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. The point that falls for consideration is: “Whether continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.308 of 2020 as against the petitioners is abuse of process? 6. Point: On a written information laid by Smt. K.Mabuchan, F.I.R. in Crime No.136 of 2020 was registered at Jammalamadugu Police Station. Inspector of Police investigated into the crime, recorded statements of six witnesses and got the victim examined by Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jammalamadugu and cited him as list witness No.7 and citing investigating officers as LWs.8, 9 and 10 he filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 498-A, 448 and 323 I.P.C. A.1 to A.4 are shown in the charge sheet. A.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant. A.2 is younger brother to A.1. A.3 is mother of A.1. A.4 is sister of A.1. Before adverting to the facts alleged in the charge sheet, the following principles are required to be noticed: 7. A.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant. A.2 is younger brother to A.1. A.3 is mother of A.1. A.4 is sister of A.1. Before adverting to the facts alleged in the charge sheet, the following principles are required to be noticed: 7. Upon an investigation into a cognizable offence if the investigating officer finds that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground, he shall forward the accused to Court (vide Section 170(1) Cr.P.C.) Upon completion of the investigation, he shall file a report of his investigation before the Magistrate who is empowers to take cognizance of offence on a police report. It is in this regard Section 173 Cr.P.C. provides that if the investigating officer comes to a conclusion that an offence appears to have been committed, he must file the police report and shall also file along with all the documents on which the prosecution intended to rely upon and all the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The competent Magistrate on perusal of such police report and on considering the material furnished along with the police report if he finds a prima facie case, he could take cognizance in terms of Section 190(b) Cr.P.C. While taking such cognizance, the learned Magistrate is obliged to apply his mind and verify the facts and form an opinion as to whether the facts available on record constitute the offences that are alleged or not? 8. In the light of the above principles, the facts on record are to be seen. First Information Report was registered in the year 2020. 12 years earlier to it the marriage between the victim woman was solemnized with A.1. During their wedlock children were born. The immediate facts that prompted the married lady to knock the doors of police took place on 16.03.2020. It is alleged that by then the married lady was not living with her husband and she was living with her mother in her parental home. At 9:15 A.M. on 16.03.2020, the victim woman happened to be in the house of her neighbour and her husband/A.1 trespassed into the house and caught hold her hair and dragged her and felled her down and mounted on her and sat on her stomach and caught hold her throat and indiscriminately beat her. At 9:15 A.M. on 16.03.2020, the victim woman happened to be in the house of her neighbour and her husband/A.1 trespassed into the house and caught hold her hair and dragged her and felled her down and mounted on her and sat on her stomach and caught hold her throat and indiscriminately beat her. She picked up a pestle to defend herself and her husband/A.1 snatched it away from her hands and in that process it hit his head and got injury to him. On the cries raised by the victim woman, her mother and relations and others reached the spot and on seeing them A.1 left the place. It is in that regard, the victim woman lodged her written information with the police. This was investigated into. According to the charge sheet, LW.7-Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Jammalamadugu examined the victim lady and recorded that he could not find any injuries on her. In support of the incident referred above, statements of six witnesses were corded. Point to be noted is that all the above mentioned allegations are only with reference to A.1 and not about A.2 and A.3. 9. The written information of victim woman indicated a few more facts. According to her, for four years preceding the crime incident she and her son came out of the matrimonial home and they have been living in the matrimonial home of victim woman. Thus, from the year 2016 victim woman was away from her matrimonial home. Allegations in the charge sheet, averments in the F.I.R. and statements made by witnesses to police do not indicate occurrence of any other incident in those four years till the incident that occurred on 16.03.2020. 10. Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim woman and her written information to police state that her husband/A.1 has been suspecting her chastity and she has been suspecting the chastity of her husband. She was informing her mother-in-law/A.3 about her suspicion against her husband but she used to abuse her asking her to show proof. Allegations are made against mother-in-law/A.3 that she used to abuse her and beat her. Thus, there are some allegations so far as A.3-Smt. K.Shareefunnisa is concerned. That A.3 is shown as 2nd petitioner in this case. In the cause title itself, it is mentioned that she died. Allegations are made against mother-in-law/A.3 that she used to abuse her and beat her. Thus, there are some allegations so far as A.3-Smt. K.Shareefunnisa is concerned. That A.3 is shown as 2nd petitioner in this case. In the cause title itself, it is mentioned that she died. Thus, so far as 2nd petitioner – Smt. K.Shareefunnisa is concerned, nothing need be observed in this petition. 11. The allegations in the charge sheet make a mention that A.2 used to harass her on the question of chastity. It is also alleged that along with all the accused he used to beat her. Two things are to be stated about these allegations. Even according to the charge sheet, the alleged facts occurred more than four years prior to F.I.R. Despite conducting investigation, the record does not indicate the date, time and specifics of alleged abuses or alleged beatings on part of A.2. It is an omnibus allegation on part of all the witnesses in their statements to police that all the accused abused and beat her. Material does not indicate what were those abuses and what type of injuries were inflicted etc. The alleged abuses and beatings did not result in any injury. The allegations do not show that such conduct on part of A.2 had the effect on the woman to commit suicide. Thus facts constituting offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. are absent concerning A.2. The other fact to be noticed is that after such alleged instances occurred, the victim woman informed the same to the police and the police called all the accused and they chastised the accused and counselled them and sent them away. Thus, whatever bickerings were there between the victim woman on one side and all the accused on the other side they were settled and no crime was registered. According to the charge sheet, even by then the victim woman was away from her matrimonial home and was living with her mother. When once the allegations ended in a compromise between the parties and if on a subsequent day the bad conduct of the accused continued, law does not permit proof of those allegations of facts which preceded the settlement on dispute. It is only the subsequent occurrences that could be alleged and proved. When once the allegations ended in a compromise between the parties and if on a subsequent day the bad conduct of the accused continued, law does not permit proof of those allegations of facts which preceded the settlement on dispute. It is only the subsequent occurrences that could be alleged and proved. For a learned Magistrate to hold a prima facie view there must be material indicating with reasonable certainty the facts and their specifics. Vague and general allegations without any other material whatsoever cannot prompt a Court to invite a citizen to stand up and defend himself. Involving someone in criminal justice process is always visited with several social and personal repercussions. Without basic material on record, filing a charge sheet against A.2 is certainly abuse of process. Case at hand depicts absolute absence of any reasonable material to allow the criminal process to proceed against 1st petitioner/A.2. Therefore, there is merit in what is contended by the petitioners. Point is answered in favour of the petitioners. 12. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Criminal proceedings as against the 1st petitioner/A.2-Sri K.Mahammad Rafi, S/o. Gouse Peer in C.C.No.308 of 2020 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 448 and 323 I.P.C. stand quashed. In this Court 2nd petitioner/A.3 -Smt. K.Shareefunnisa, W/o. Gouse Peer is shown as dead by the petitioners. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.