Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 635 (AP)

Somula Sathyavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-04-30

HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The petition is filed challenging the order passed in Crl. RP No.43 of 2019 in Crl. MP No.1533 of 2017 in CC No.13 of 2015 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur. 2. The petitioners were arraigned as accused Nos.4 to 6 in CC No.13 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddutur. The prosecution has filed petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and sought to add respondent Nos.4 to 7 therein to the array of accused. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.07.2018 partly allowed the petition filed by the prosecution and held that petitioners 4 to 6 are added as accused Nos.4 to 6 as prima facie allegation is made out by the de facto complainant. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed criminal revision petition before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur. The learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that PW1 in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has disclosed the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of offence. As such, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that charge-sheet was filed by Proddutur I Town Police on 12.11.2007 and the Police filed the charge-sheet and have stated that there is no evidence against accused Nos.2 to 6 and deleted accused Nos.2 to 6 from the list of accused vide proceedings dated 16.11.2007. 5. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa had directed the SDPO, Proddutur to entrust the case to Inspector of Police, Proddutur Urban for reinvestigation vide Memo dated 30.11.2007. The LW17 filed the requisition before the Court and the learned Magistrate accorded permission for reinvestigation on 08.07.2008. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate does not have power to direct reinvestigation and under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can only direct further investigation and not reinvestigation. The LW17 filed the requisition before the Court and the learned Magistrate accorded permission for reinvestigation on 08.07.2008. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate does not have power to direct reinvestigation and under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can only direct further investigation and not reinvestigation. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Dipak and others, (2013) 5 SCC 762 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no investigation agency is empower to conduct a fresh, de novo or reinvestigation in relation to the offence for which it has already filed the report in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. It is only upon the orders of the Higher Courts empower to pass such orders that aforesaid investigation can be conducted, in which event the Higher Courts will have to pass a specific order with regard to the fate of the investigation already conducted and the report so filed before the Court of the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that the Magistrate Court could have permitted the investigating officer to conduct further investigation but not reinvestigation. 7. That apart, it is also the case of the petitioners that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioners which would attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that except for the vague reference of harassment by the petitioners made by the LW1 in her statement there are no specific details. It is submitted that the petitioners are sisters of the 1st accused and were married much prior to the marriage of the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent and were living with their respective families separately in different towns. 8. It is also submitted that the petitioners are roped in as accused only to pressurize the 1st accused and to harass the petitioners. It is submitted that initial charge-sheet was filed on 12.11.2007 and the Police have purportedly conducted reinvestigation on the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa and filed additional charge-sheet on 13.07.2012 and arrayed accused 2 and 3 i.e., the parents of 1st accused. Thereafter, the prosecution has filed a petition after almost ten years after filing the initial charge-sheet and sought to array the petitioners as accused. 9. Thereafter, the prosecution has filed a petition after almost ten years after filing the initial charge-sheet and sought to array the petitioners as accused. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the investigating officer is duty bound to notify the complainant while deleting the names of the persons against whom complaint is made from the array of accused. It is also submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, as such, the Police could not have deleted the petitioners from the array of accused. 10. It is also stated that, when specific allegations are made in the complaint and in the statement of LW1/PW1 the allegations would have to be tried before the Trial Court and that the case ought not to be considered for quashing by invoking the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondent places reliance on Kotla Hari Chakrapani Reddy v. State of A.P., (2012) 08 AP CK 0057, this Court has held that there is no provision in law for deleting an accused from the case by the police officers, investigating officer or the Superintendent of the Police district concerned and that it is for the investigating officer to place all the material before the Magistrate. Without there being judicial decision on cognizance, no police officer can unilaterally delete or direct deletion of an accused from a case. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2014 INSC 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the accused subsequently impleaded are to be treated as if they had been accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence. The difference in the degree Section 319 Cr.PC would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and others, Crl. A No.1487 of 2025, decided on 01.04.2025. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and others, Crl. A No.1487 of 2025, decided on 01.04.2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that on the facts of the case the involvement of the respondents was not found in the subsequent enquiries conducted by the DSP, Karnal, DSP, HQ, Karnal and DSP, Karnal-2. However, as many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. On the facts of that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court as the involvement of the respondents are otherwise cannot be solely relied upon the reports of the Deputy Superintendents of Police. 12. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material on record. 13. On account of marital dispute between the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent, a complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent against the 1st accused and the relatives of the 1st accused. The complaint was filed alleging that on 26.09.2007, A1 drove out LW1 from the house and A1 was pressing to give divorce to LW1. It is also alleged that A1 had assaulted LW1, as a result of which LW1 sustained contusions. 14. The petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 6 on filing of the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate has simply stated that the report given by PW1 to the Police and Section 161 Cr.PC statement of some of the witnesses i.e., PW1, the de facto complainant, father and mother of de facto complainant disclosed the involvement of petitioners in commission of the alleged offences. PW1 in her statement before Police has given vague reference to the petitioners without any specific details. However, in the chief-examination before the Court, the LW1/PW1 has stated several things which do not find place in the complaint or in the statement before the Police. These contradictions cannot form basis for arraying the petitioners as accused. These contradictions would have to be considered as improvements of the statement of the complaint after a period of ten years of initial allegations. These contradictions cannot form basis for arraying the petitioners as accused. These contradictions would have to be considered as improvements of the statement of the complaint after a period of ten years of initial allegations. The petition filed by the prosecution to array the petitioners as accused is after a period of 10 years after laying charge-sheet against accused No.1 alone. 15. As seen from the charge-sheet, it is stated that the Superintendent of Police, has directed reinvestigation and LW17 thereafter filed a memo seeking permission of the Court for reinvestigation and that the learned Magistrate accorded sanction for reinvestigation in the year 2008. The Police after reinvestigation have arrayed the parents of accused No.1 as accused Nos.2 and 3. Insofar as, the proceedings of reinvestigation are concerned and the permission accorded by the Magistrate, the same are not before this Court to determine whether such proceedings could have been issued or not. As such, this Court is not inclined to venture into that aspect. 16. Insofar as, arraying the petitioners as accused is concerned on a petition filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., admittedly, the allegations in the complaint and the statement of LW1/PW1 before the Police under Section 161 Cr.PC, is vague, omnibus and bereft of details. These omnibus allegations making sweeping reference to the involvement of the petitioners without specific details such as date and place cannot sustain the scrutiny of trial. Such allegations could not qualify for tested before a Trial Court. 17. Admittedly, the petitioners are sisters of the accused No.1 and were married much prior to the marriage of the accused No.1. Soon after their marriage they were residing with their respective families in different towns away from the marital home of the 2nd respondent and the accused No.1. This case on hand is another classic case where the sisters of the husband are roped in as accused for wreaking vengeance against the 1st accused. 18. Married sisters living with their respective families separately in different towns cannot be roped in as accused without any specific allegations and without any details of the specific allegations in the complaint or in the statement before the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Any improvements made by PW1 before the Court would have to be considered as an afterthought only with a view to implicate the petitioners as accused. 19. 19. In this case, the Police have filed a charge-sheet in the year 2012, thereafter, the Police have reportedly conducted reinvestigation of the case, which is not legally permissible if it is reinvestigation and have arrayed the parents of 1st accused as accused Nos.2 and 3. The effort made by the 2nd respondent by improving her statement during the course of chief-examination before the Court is only with a view to implicate the petitioners. The prosecution has filed petition in the year 2017, after almost three years after deposition of 2nd respondent as PW1 before the Trial Court. 20. Section 319 of Cr.P.C., falling under Chapter-XXIII would deal with the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. This would not ipso facto entitle the PW1 to introduce fresh and omnibus allegations against the petitioners during the course of her examination-in-chief. The improvements in her statement in the chief-examination have to be considered as made with a predetermined scheme for arraying the petitioners as co-accused. 21. On these facts and circumstances, the order passed by the learned Magistrate deserves to be set aside and the revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. This Court is of the considered view that implicating unconnected blood relatives of husband of a estranged wife in criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is nothing but abuse of the due process of law and accordingly criminal petition is allowed. 22. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. 23. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.