Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Simply because no specific overt acts are attributed against some of the petitioners, it cannot be said to be a ground to quash the proceedings against them. Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC reads as under: “Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC: harassment of 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.”


CRLP 123 / 2013

CRLPSR 46 / 2013

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
GARAPATI VEERA PRASADA RAO & 3 OTHERS  VSTHE STATE OF AP., & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : RAJURESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Quash the F.I.RDISTRICT:  RANGA REDDY
FILING DATE:  02-01-2013POSTING STAGE :  FOR ADMISSIONDISPOSED ON  :  04-01-2013  DIS
REG. DATE    :   03-01-2013LISTING DATE :  04-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):K.C.BHANU    

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

CRIMINAL PETITION No.123 OF 2013

ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.854 of 2012 of Kukatpalli Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2.      The petitioners herein are A-2 to A-5 and respondent No.2 herein is the de facto complainant in the above crime.  It is alleged in the complaint that on 03.06.2010, marriage of the de facto complainant was performed with A-1; that at that time, her parents gave
13 tulas gold, Ac.2.00 of land, Rs.40,000/- cash towards adapadachu lanchanams and Rs.12,000/- towards household articles; that out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a male child; that thereafter, A-1 along with his parents harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally in one way or the other and hence, the de facto complainant lodged the present complaint.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners 2 and 3 are residents of Chennai andBangalore; that no specific allegations are levelled against them including petitioner No.4 and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4.      At the initial stage of the registration of First Information Report, the Court has to see whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint made out a cognizable offence or not.  Once it is found that the allegations made out a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the Police to conduct investigation.

5.      During the course of investigation, after examination of the witnesses, if all the petitioners are found to be involved in the offence punishable under Section
498-A IPC, then there is no legal bar for filing charge sheet against the petitioners.  Simply because no specific overt acts are attributed against some of the petitioners, it cannot be said to be a ground to quash the proceedings against them. Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC reads as under:
“Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC:

harassment of 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.”

6.      In the instant case, it is alleged in the complaint that some of the petitioners demanded one crore rupees towards additional dowry. Therefore, a cognizable offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioners and hence, question of quashing the proceedings in the above crime does not arise.

6.      Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.   Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
______________
K.C. BHANU, J

04.01.2013
KH

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.