Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 804 (AP)

Nagiri Subba Lakshmi v. State of A. P.

2024-07-23

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : Criminal petition Nos.45 of 2019 and 500 of 2019 are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the docket order dated 17.05.2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Badvel whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused Nos.2 to 8 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 494, 420, 120(B) read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The petitioners in Crl.P.No. 45 of 2019 are accused Nos.2 to 4 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.500 of 2019 is accused No.5. Respondent No.2 in both the petitions is one and the same. Since both the petitions are filed seeking to quash the docket order dated 17.05.2017 by the different accused, these petitions are taken up together for disposal by way of common order. 3. Accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1, accused No.3 is the father of accused No.1, accused No.4 is the younger brother of accused No.1, and accused No.5 is the sister of accused No.1. The 2nd respondent herein is the de-facto complainant and is the wife of accused No.1. 4. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the police alleging that she is a resident of Porumamilla Town, YSR Kadapa District and her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 25.04.2012 at TTD marriage function hall, Badvel. After marriage, both of them started conjugal life at Hyderabad and lived happily for some time. Later accused No.1 informed that he is working as Manager at a company in Saudi Arabia and that as he came here on one month leave, he shall return to Saudi Arabia, if not he would be put to a loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, he went to Saudi Arabia stating that he would come soon with visa and promised to take defacto complainant back to Saudi Arabia. After five months, the accused came back to Hyderabad for one month, but did not apply for visa of the defacto complainant. During the said period, the defacto complainant became pregnant and subsequently, the accused No.1 went back to Saudi Arabia. After residing for three months with the parents of accused No.1 i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3, the complainant went back to her parental home as she was advised by the doctor to take bed rest. During the said period, the defacto complainant became pregnant and subsequently, the accused No.1 went back to Saudi Arabia. After residing for three months with the parents of accused No.1 i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3, the complainant went back to her parental home as she was advised by the doctor to take bed rest. Thereafter, the complainant gave birth to twins, but they were dead after five days. After ten days, accused No.1 came back from Saudi Arabia and quarreled with the complainant stating that as she is suffering from joints disease she was unable to give birth properly. Thereafter, accused No.1 started harassing the respondent No.2 physically and mentally. When the respondent No.2 has informed the same to her parents, she was taken back to the parental home. Subsequently, the accused No.1 filed a divorce petition as against the 2nd respondent which is pending before family Court, Kadapa. Thereafter, when there was a proposal of the accused No.1 to marry one Leelavathi, the brothers of respondent No.2 informed her parents about the previous marriage of the accused No.1 with the 2nd respondent; upon which the said proposal was withdrawn. 5. Basing on the complaint filed by the defacto complainant the police registered a case in Crime No.260 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 420, 120(b) read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. During the course of investigation, investigating officer examined 9 witnesses and recorded their statements. As L.Ws 2 to 8 have not supported the version of the de-facto complainant, a charge sheet was filed as against accused No.1 only by deleting the names of other accused. And the same was numbered as C.C.No.305 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel. Aggrieved by the action of police in deleting the names of accused Nos.2 to 8, the de-facto complainant filed requisition before the learned Magistrate requesting to take cognizance against all the accused including the petitioners herein for the offences referred above. On receipt of the said requisition learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of all the accused including the petitioners herein for the offences referred above vide docket order dated 17.05.2017. The present petitions have been filed to quash the said docket order dated 17.05.2017. 6. On receipt of the said requisition learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of all the accused including the petitioners herein for the offences referred above vide docket order dated 17.05.2017. The present petitions have been filed to quash the said docket order dated 17.05.2017. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein are baseless and they would not constitute any offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC. In the statements recorded by the police, the witnesses did not whisper anything against the petitioners herein. Hence, the police filed charge sheet against accused No.1 only, leaving the petitioners herein. Therefore, the protest petition/requisition filed by the defacto complainant is not maintainable. Further, the learned Magistrate did not assign any reasons before passing such an order taking cognizance against the petitioners herein and requested to set-aside the docket order dated 17.05.2017. 7. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent/defacto complainant contended that the defacto complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioners herein. The allegations made in the complaint are sufficient to take cognizance against the petitioners herein and requested to dismiss the petition. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the docket order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned magistrate and requested to dismiss the criminal petition. 9. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the docket order dated 17.05.2017 in C.C.No.305 of 2017 passed on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Badvel, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 10. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 11. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: 12. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 13. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. 13. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 494 .” 14. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 15. It is evident from the material on record that respondent No.2/defacto complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioners and the same was registered as FIR No.260 of 2015. After completion of investigation police filed charge sheet as against accused No.1 only, by deleting the names of other accused. Aggrieved by which defacto complainant filed requisition before the learned magistrate. On receipt of such requisition learned magistrate passed the docket order dated 17.05.2017 taking cognizance against all the accused, which is as follows: “This case is taken on file after hearing on defacto complainant :LW1 with regard to deletion of names of A2 to A8 and Sec. 494, 420, 120(B) r/w 34 I.P.C. and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, for that LW1, filed requisition on 4-5-2017, basing on it, taken cognizance after perusing material on record against A1 to A8 U/Sec. 498-A, 494, 420, 120(B) r/w 34 I.P.C. and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and registered as C.C.No. 305/2017. Issue s/s to A1 to A8 call on 3-7-2017.” 16. As seen from the above docket order dated 17.05.2017, it is evident that the trial court did not assign any reason before passing such an order taking cognizance against the petitioners herein. Time and again, the Apex Court and this Court issued certain guidelines to be followed for drafting judgments/orders and highlighted the requirements of an order or judgment. 17. An order pronounced on the bench shall contain the reasoning since the judge speaks with authority by his judgment/order. The strength of a judgment/order lies in its reasoning and it should therefore be convincing. Clarity of exposition is always essential. In the words of Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Sabyasachi Mukharji, the requirement of a good judgment/order is reason. Judgment is of value on the strength of its reasons. The weight of a judgment/order, its binding character or its persuasive character depends on the presentation and articulation of reasons. Reason, therefore, is the soul and spirit of a good judgment/order. When an order is pronounced without reasoning, it is not an order in the eye of law for the reason that the requirement of reasoning either by trial Court or Appellate Court is to convey the mind of the judge while deciding such an issue before the Court. A judge is required to apply his/her mind and give focused consideration to rival contentions raised by both parties. 18. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage, a decision without reasons is like grass without root, the requirement to record reasons is one of the principles of natural justice as well and where a statute required recording of reasons in support of the order, it must be done by the authorities concerned as held by the Apex Court in “S.M. Mukerji v. Union of India, 1990 Crl.L.J.2148”. In view of the principle laid down in the above judgment, it can be said that the order passed by the Court below is nothing but a slipshod one. Therefore, the docket order dated 17.05.2017 is liable to be set-aside on this ground alone. 19. Further, in the present case the petitioner Nos. In view of the principle laid down in the above judgment, it can be said that the order passed by the Court below is nothing but a slipshod one. Therefore, the docket order dated 17.05.2017 is liable to be set-aside on this ground alone. 19. Further, in the present case the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.45 of 2019 are the in-laws of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.500 of 2019 is sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. The Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 , while referring to its earlier judgment in K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 , held that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and must keep in mind that relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations. 20. In the present case, police recorded the statements of L.Ws. 1 to 9. As there are no specific allegations as against the petitioners herein, police filed charge sheet as against accused No.1 only. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the docket order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Badvel taking cognizance against the petitioners is liable to be set-aside. 21. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are allowed, quashing the docket order dated 17.05.2017 in C.C.No.305 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Badvel. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.