Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 806 (AP)

K. Sankara Rao v. State of AP

2024-07-23

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”)seeking quash proceedings in C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the file learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 and husband of the de facto complainant/2nd respondent in the above C.C.No.380 of 2018. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant 3. The case of the 2nd respondent is that, the marriage of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was performed on 09.02.2000 at Sarada Kalyana Mandapam, Visakhapatnam as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs and they were blessed with male child in the year 2001. In the interregnum period, the 2nd respondent suffered with psychological problem and did not join the petitioner though the matter was placed before elders and thereafter both of them filed cases against one another before various courts. On 08.11.2015 at 09.00 hrs., the complainant lodged a report with the police against the petitioner alleging that in March-2015 the family court issued orders that Rs.10,000/- should be paid to the complainant and her son towards maintenance and the arrears of Rs.9,90,000/- as salary attachment. Though the petitioner works in the port trust, he did not wish to give the maintenance granted by the Court, but however, he promised to look after the respondent No.2 and her son in a good manner and that he will place them in a rented house. Believing the same, the respondent No.2 and her son went with the petitioner herein, but, the petitioner did not place them in a rented house as promised; instead kept them at the 2nd respondent”s parents house with a condition that she won”t approach the Court. On 05.11.2015, the petitioner took them to the petitioner”s house at Darapalem, Chinnagadhili Mandal. Immediately on the next day i.e. 06.11.2015, when the 2nd respondent questioned the petitioner about his attitude, she was beaten by the petitioner. Getting scared, the respondent No.2 went upstairs, pursuant to which the petitioner along with his mother pulled the respondent No.2 by catching her tuft and dragged her to the bedroom, where they have tried to kill the respondent No.2 by putting a pillow on her nose. After escaping from such an attempt, the 2nd respondent has dialed 100. 4. Getting scared, the respondent No.2 went upstairs, pursuant to which the petitioner along with his mother pulled the respondent No.2 by catching her tuft and dragged her to the bedroom, where they have tried to kill the respondent No.2 by putting a pillow on her nose. After escaping from such an attempt, the 2nd respondent has dialed 100. 4. On receiving the said complaint, police registered the same vide Crime No.158/2015 on the file of Arilova Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed final report dated 30.11.2015 referring the said complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent as “false”. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent herein filed protest petition along with a private complaint before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and the same was registered as C.C.No.380 of 2018. The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the said C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the ground that the protest petition is not maintainable as the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent earlier was referred as “false” by the police. 5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 20.03.2019, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…In the meantime, there shall be stay of all further proceedings.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations made in the earlier complaint as well as in the private complaint are totally false and fabricated as the petitioner and respondent No.2 are living separately. Further, 2nd respondent filed several cases one after other which amounts to cruelty therefore, the question of harassing the 2nd respondent does not arise. Earlier, during the course of investigation police recorded the statements of 5 witnesses and came to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner and referred the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent as “false”. Thereafter, he was falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the 2nd respondent in the private complaint and requested to quash the petition. 7. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent contended that the defacto complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner; therefore he is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498 of Indian Penal Code. 7. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent contended that the defacto complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner; therefore he is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498 of Indian Penal Code. He further contended that police recorded the statements of interested witnesses only and referred the case as “false”. The petitioner/accused harassed the 2nd respondent physically and mentally which amounts to cruelty, and requested to dismiss the criminal petition. 8. 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 proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 9. 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. 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. 10. 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: 11. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 10. 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: 11. 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. 12. 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. 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 ” 13. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (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 FIR 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 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 FIR 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. (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. 14. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 15. In the earlier complaint, which was registered as Crime No.158/2015, the respondent No.2 made an allegation against the petitioner that he beat her on 06.11.2015 and tried to kill her by putting a pillow on her nose. 16. It is stated in the present complaint/protest petition that on 05.11.2015, the respondent No.2 made a phone call to the petitioner herein and questioned him about leaving her at her parents” house without taking her to the matrimonial home. Immediately, the petitioner herein promised the respondent No.2 to look after her well in future and on the same day i.e. on 05.11.2015 at 7-00 pm, the petitioner herein took back the 2nd respondent to the house of the accused No.2 at Dharapalem, Visakhapatnam, who is the mother of the petitioner. 17. It is further stated in the complaint/protest petition that on 06.11.2015 at about 9-00 pm, the senior younger brother of the 2nd respondent made a phone call to the petitioner herein and requested him to look after the 2nd respondent well in future without harassing her and not to leave her in the house of their parents as was done previously. The specific allegation made by the defacto complainant in the complaint/protest petition against the petitioner herein is as follows: “Immediately, the 1st accused put the phone off and quarreled with the complainant with the active assistance and instigation of the 2nd and 3rd accused. The specific allegation made by the defacto complainant in the complaint/protest petition against the petitioner herein is as follows: “Immediately, the 1st accused put the phone off and quarreled with the complainant with the active assistance and instigation of the 2nd and 3rd accused. The 1st accused also beat the complainant black and blue with the active instigation of 2nd and 3rd accused. In those circumstances, the complainant, with a view to escape from the clutches of the 1st accused, ran away to the terrace of the said house. Upon which, the 1st and 2nd accused went to the terrace of the house, caught hold tuft of her hair and forcibly dragged down to the stairs. The accused Nos.1 and 2 have tried to do away the life of the complainant by pressing her neck as well as her mouth with a pillow. The 1st and 2nd accused, with the active instigation of the 3rd accused, have committed the above narrated cruelty to the complainant and also caused bleeding injuries to her.” 18. By narrating the above incidents, the respondent No.2 requested the Court to register the case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. For better appreciation of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to extract Section 498A of I.P.C., as under: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.” 19. The basic essential ingredients to attract Section 498A are: “a) The woman must be married b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.” 20. The basic essential ingredients to attract Section 498A are: “a) The woman must be married b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.” 20. A bare glance of the section shows that the word “cruelty” covers any or all of the following elements: “(i) Any “wilful” conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide; or (ii) any “wilful” conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman; or (iii) any “wilful” act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health whether physical or mental of the woman.” 21. Section 498-A deals with subjecting the wife to cruelty by husband or relative of husband. The explanation thereto defined what amounts to cruelty. "Cruelty" means (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 22. Thus, subjecting the defacto complainant to cruelty by her husband would certainly fall within the ambit of cruelty under Clause (a) of Section 498- A IPC. The present complaint/protest petition disclosed the allegation that the defacto complainant was subjected to cruelty by causing injuries on her body and tried to kill her by pressing her neck as well as her nose with the pillow. 23. In the present case in view of the interim order granted by this Court the investigation is at initial stage and the same has not been completed till now. 24. Undisputedly, investigation in the present case is at the fetus stage, in such case, it is difficult to quash the proceedings as held in “State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540 ”, wherein the Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. should not be exercised by the High Court to stifle a legitimate prosecution. P.C. should not be exercised by the High Court to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court, being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. 25. In “Kurukshetra University v. State Of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2229 ”, the Supreme Court took a serious view about quashing the proceedings by the High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C and observed as follows: “It surprises, us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, it could quash a First Information Report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the F.I.R. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.” 26. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.” 26. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo” and “Kurukshetra University v. State Of Haryana” (referred supra) when the investigation is at fetus stage, this Court cannot interfere with the process of investigation and quash the proceedings by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 27. The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, to do real and substantial justice, for administration of which alone Courts exist. Wherever any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent the abuse. It is, however, not necessary that at this stage there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case ends in conviction or acquittal. (Vide Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 494 ) 28. The Court cannot evaluate the material and documents on record and it cannot appreciate evidence, to conclude whether the material produced is sufficient or not for convicting the accused. Therefore, the limited purpose of appreciating of facts is only to come to a conclusion whether proceeding against the accused for the alleged offence committed by the accused be proceeded or not. Thus, the limited jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. 29. Thus, the Court must exercise its inherent power only when the allegations made in the complaint would not constitute an offence, but here the allegations made in the complaint would prima facie constitute offence, if taken on their face value, against the petitioner, who made attempt to press the neck of the defacto complainant which amounts to cruelty under explanation to Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. 30. Section 323 of IPC deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, Section 341 of IPC deals with punishment for wrongful restrain and Section 506 of IPC deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. 30. 30. Section 323 of IPC deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, Section 341 of IPC deals with punishment for wrongful restrain and Section 506 of IPC deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. 30. In view of the specific allegations made by the complainant against the petitioner in the complaint/protest petition that the petitioner beat her, threatened her and tried to kill her by placing a pillow on her nose, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the present petition to quash the proceedings for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 341 & 506 I.P.C. The truth or otherwise in the allegations made against the petitioner cannot be decided at this stage, since it is a disputed question of fact. In view of the above discussion, this criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 31. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand closed.