QUASHING OF CASE UNDER SEC.498 A OF I.P.C. etc., against the relatives of Husband = the Supreme Court stressed the need to scrutinize the allegations with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the matrimonial home of the complainant. The Supreme Court also felt the need for serious relook at the entire provision 498-A of I.P.C. by the Parliament. The Supreme Court further emphasized the need of social responsibility and obligation of the members of Bar and Bench to maintain social fibre of family life. It is the duty of this Court while acting under Section 482 Cr.P.C to scrutinize the allegations in their complaint to find out whether there is any prima facie truth in the allegations levelled against the accused. On thorough scrutiny and circumspection of the allegations, if the Court finds that they are only invented purposefully to involve the relations of the husband of the de facto complainant, it has to exercise discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.If the allegations against the accused create doubt, that in fact the disputes are really between the de facto complainant and her husband. -The main incident in this case seems to be that on a particular day all the accused went to the parents house of the second respondent- de facto complainant in the absence of her mother and brother, abused her for coming out of the matrimonial home without informing them, demanded additional dowry and beat her indiscriminately. The petitioners are residents of Vizag. All of them went to Rajahmundry and allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant at her parents house where she had several relatives and friends. The allegations obviously seems to be improbable. It would appear that to rope in all the close relatives of her husband, the second respondent invented the incident and filed a complaint in the Magistrate's Court at Rajahmundry. The charge sheet is nothing but the replica of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Magistrate. The aforesaid incident in my view seems to have been created only for the purpose of involving the petitioners, who are close relatives of the husband of the de facto complainant. The main incident in this case which was alleged against the petitioners appears to be un-natural and improbable. If the case is allowed to be continued against the petitioners, and to face the trial and it would cause substantial injustice and undue hardship to the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.262 of 2009 are quashed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

 PUBLISHED IN judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9742

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO      

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.177 OF 2010  

21.03.2013

Tummala Ramnarayana, S/o.Venkata Jagga Rao, 65 years, Retired Employee, 91/12,  
M.V.P. Colony, Vizag & 4 others

The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad through the Station House Officer, Prakasanagaram P.S., Rajahmundry &
another

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

Counsel for Petitioners: S.R.SANKU

Counsel for Respondent No.1: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR      

Counsel for Respondent No.2: None appeared

?Cases referred
(2010) 7 SCC 667

ORDER:
        This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the
proceedings in C.C. No.262 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the II Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry.
        Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-A2 to A6 and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
The second
respondent-de facto complainant though served with notice has not made her
appearance either in person or through a counsel.
        The brief facts of the case are as follows:
        The marriage of the second respondent-de facto complainant was performed
with A1 at Rajahmundry six years prior to filing of the complaint.
It is stated
that at the time of marriage, the mother and brother of the second respondent
paid Rs.15,00,000/- to the first accused towards dowry apart from giving silver
and gold articles.
Their marriage was consummated. 
The second respondent joined 
the first accused for leading conjugal life at Visakhapatnam where he was an
employee. 
After some time, the second respondent came to know that the first
accused was indebted to so many people and informed the said fact to her brother
and mother.
Subsequently, the first accused and the second respondent were 
brought to Rajahmundry by the mother and brother of the second respondent to
secure some employment to the first accused. 
While so, on 27.06.2009 the second
respondent and the first accused blessed with a female child by name Nikita.
According to the second respondent, the first accused was not interested in
employment and made debts in Rajahmundry.
When the second respondent questioned     
him about his attitude, he grew wild, beat her and harassed her to get
additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her mother and brother to clear of the
debts at Visakhapatnam. 
After some time, the first accused came back to
Visakhapatnam stating that he would secure a job there.
On 20.12.2008, when the
second respondent came to the house of the first accused to join him, her in-
laws rejected to receive her and directed to go back to her parents house. 
In
spite of their rejection, the second respondent stayed at Visakhapatnam for 10
days. But during the said period, the first accused did not visit their house.
It is stated that A2 to A6 used to abuse and harass her mentally.   
They stopped
providing food to her and her daughter Nikhita also due to which the second
respondent suffered ill health and returned to Rajahmundry on 02.01.2009.
        In the mean time, on a particular day,
 A1 to A6 visited the parents house
of the second respondent, abused her in filthy language for coming out of her matrimonial home without informing them and beat her with hands. 
A2 slapped on
her cheek and A4 & A5 caught hold tuft of her hair and dragged her on steps and her mother-in-law-A3 fisted blows on the second respondent. 
In the mean time,
the brother and mother of the second respondent came and rescued her. 
Thereafter, all the accused left the parents house of the second respondent and demanded her for additional dowry.
Thereafter, according to the second respondent, she approached the police and
informed the incident and the police advised them to approach the Court and on
that she filed a private complaint before the II Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Rajahmundry.
The learned Magistrate forwarded the private complaint
to the Station House Officer, Prakasanagaram, Rajahmundry under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C for investigation. The police after conducting investigation filed charge
sheet against the accused under Section 498-A, 506, 323 read with 34 IPC.
        Among the petitioners, 
petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of A1,
petitioner No.3 is brother of A1, 
petitioner No.4 is the wife of petitioner No.3,
 petitioner No.5 is sister of petitioner No.2.  
Almost all the close
relatives of the first accused are implicated in the present case.
        Sri S.R.Sanku, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that in fact the disputes are between the second respondent and her husband-1st
accused, and the petitioners-A2 to A6 are no way responsible,
but they were
falsely implicated in the present case by the second respondent by inventing an incident alleged to have occurred at Rajahmundry.  According to the learned
counsel, involving all the close relatives of A1 is nothing but abuse of process
of law and he sought indulgence of this Court to quash the proceedings against
them in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
In support of his submissions, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in
 Preeti Gupta & another vs. State of Jharkhand & another1 wherein the Supreme Court apart from expressing serious
concern about the genuine cases of dowry harassment depricated the practice of creating exaggerated versions of small incidents.  While filing complaints in
matrimonial matters the Supreme Court stressed the need to scrutinize the
allegations with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's
relatives who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely
visited the matrimonial home of the complainant.  
The Supreme Court also felt
the need for serious relook at the entire provision 498-A of I.P.C. by the
Parliament.  The Supreme Court further emphasized the need of social
responsibility and obligation of the members of Bar and Bench to maintain social
fibre of family life.
It is the duty of this Court while acting under Section 482 Cr.P.C to scrutinize
the allegations in their complaint to find out whether there is any prima facie
truth in the allegations levelled against the accused.
        On thorough scrutiny and circumspection of the allegations, if the Court finds that they are only invented purposefully to involve the relations of the husband of the de facto complainant, it has to exercise discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.If the allegations against the accused create doubt, that in fact the disputes are really between the de facto complainant and her husband. 
In the
instant case, a casual reference has been made to the petitioners that they were
harassing and abusing the second respondent-de facto complainant mentally.

The main incident in this case seems to be that on a particular day all the
accused went to the parents house of the second respondent- de facto complainant
in the absence of her mother and brother, abused her for coming out of the
matrimonial home without informing them, demanded additional dowry and beat her
indiscriminately.
The petitioners are residents of Vizag.  
All of them went to Rajahmundry and
allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant at her parents house where she had several relatives and friends.  
The allegations obviously seems to be improbable. 
 It would appear that to rope in all the close relatives of her
husband, the second respondent invented the incident and filed a complaint in the Magistrate's Court at Rajahmundry.  
The charge sheet is nothing but the replica of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Magistrate.  The aforesaid incident in my view seems to have been created only
for the purpose of involving the petitioners, who are close relatives of the husband of the de facto complainant.  The main incident in this case which was
alleged against the petitioners appears to be
un-natural and improbable. If the case is allowed to be continued against the petitioners, and to face the trial and it would cause substantial injustice and undue hardship to the petitioners.
For the aforesaid reasons, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.262 of 2009 are
quashed.
Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
R. KANTHA RAO,J  
21st March, 2013

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.