HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1591 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No.02 of 2020 on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.
2. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above P.R.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 498A and 306 of IPC.
3. Heard Mr. S. Nagender, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. As per the contents of the charge sheet, it is alleged as under:
i) Petitioner No.2 is the father of petitioner No.1.
ii) Petitioner No.1 is the son-in-law of respondent No.2 - de facto complainant. De facto complainant performed the marriage of her daughter - Arthi with petitioner No.1 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021 herein in the year 2017. Out of their wedlock, they blessed with two male children;
iii) Two months after the marriage, petitioner No.1 used to suspect the fidelity and character of the daughter of respondent No.2 and used to check up her mobile phone. He also used to pick up quarrel with the daughter of respondent No.2 on every petty issue, and the same was informed by the daughter to her mother, respondent No.2 herein;
iv) Petitioner No.2 herein used to support his son, petitioner No.1, in every wrongful act;
v) On 18.08.2020 at about 22:00 hours, the brother of petitioner No.1 made a phone call to respondent No.2 and informed that her daughter had committed suicide by hanging and she was shifted to Premier Hospital at Nanal Nagar, Hyderabad, where the duty doctor confirmed that she was brought dead;
vi) The deceased committed suicide only on account of the harassment meted out by petitioner No.1 herein while 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021 petitioner No.2 abetted his son for harassing the deceased.
vii) Thus, both the petitioners committed the aforesaid offences.
5. Then, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners with Narsingi Police Station, who in turn, registered a case vide Crime No.671 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein.
6. The police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide P.R.C. No.2 of 2020 by the XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the petitioners herein are innocent of the offences alleged against them. They have not committed any offence, much less the aforesaid offences and that they were implicated in the subject crime. He would further submit that after the marriage, petitioner No.1 and the deceased led happy marital life. On the other 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021 hand, the deceased right from the date of marriage, started harassing petitioner No.1 to set up separate family for which he did not accept.
i) Learned counsel would further submit that on 18.08.2020, petitioner No.1 was engaged in his business and at that time, he received a phone call from his mother that the deceased committed suicide. If really there was any harassment as alleged by respondent No.2, the deceased would have lodged a complaint during her life time itself. There are no specific allegations against petitioner No.2 except saying that he used to support the illegal acts of petitioner No.1. Prima facie, there are no allegations against the petitioners, but without considering the same, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the Court below.
ii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in the subject crime.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein and the same are triable issues. The defence taken by the petitioners herein 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021 cannot be considered in an application under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, he sought to dismiss the present petition.
9. As stated above, pursuant to the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the police registered a case in Crime No.671 of 2020 against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of as many as 14 witnesses. On considering their statements only, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against both the accused, the petitioners herein. As discussed above, prima facie, there are specific allegations, and the role played by each of the petitioner herein in the commission of offences is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. The above said contentions or defences taken by them are triable issues and it is for the trial Court to consider the same during trial, but not in a petition filed under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C.
10. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra1 the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint 1 . AIR 2019 SC 847 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021 did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to the High Court to quash the same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of the complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing a complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only relevant question was whether averments in the complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses any prima facie offences that were alleged against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only 7 KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021 on the ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
11. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
12. In view of the above discussion and the authoritative pronouncements of law by the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in the subject C.C. and the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 6th June, 2022 Mgr 2 . AIR 2021 SC 931