Telangana High Court
Uzwal Gutta vs State Of Telangana on 24 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4040 of 2023
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.281 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 355 read with 34 IPC.
2. The facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein has lodged a complaint before the Police stating that he is the grandfather of Baby Stephy Graph who is the daughter of his deceased daughter Mrs. Rekha and 1st petitioner, and further stated that his daughter Rekha has committed suicide on 06.05.2018 and a crime was registered against his deceased daughter's husband in P.S. Chandanagar vide Crime No.264 of 2018 for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and same is numbered as S.C.No.596 of 2019 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and same is pending for adjudication and this petitioner No.1 has filed a complaint with the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) regarding the whereabouts of his third child and his youngest daughter Baby Stephy Graph and the CWC summoned the 2nd respondent to appear before them along with the child and the 2nd respondent appeared before the CWC member along with the child by name Baby Stephy Graph, and CWC members have signaled petitioner No.1 to take away the child from the 2 respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 along with his advocate Mr. Raghunandan pre-planned to kidnap his grand-daughter by criminal force and in this tussle, the 2nd respondent's daughter Lalitha injured and had fractured and futher stated that his grand daughter's life is in danger. Petitioner No.1 along with others used criminal force to take away his grand-daughter by name Stephy Graph; as such basing on the same the Police registered a case in FIR No.242 of 2018 arraying the petitioner as accused No.1. Accused No.1 is the husband of his deceased daughter, accused No.2 is advocate, accused No.3 is grand- daughter.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent daughter Rekha married to the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 is the mother of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 is the deceased daughter Rekha has committed suicide due to mental health issues and she also mentioned the same in the suicide note. In fact Rekha expressed in her suicide note that petitioner No.1 shall take good care of their children. Petitioner No.1 is the natural father and legal guardian of respondent No.2's grand-daughter Baby Stephy Graph, and they are taking utmost care of the children and the petitioner No.2 is the practicing advocate and no way connected with the offence and he came along with the petitioner to the CWC and the petitioners are falsely implicated in the case without any allegations against the petitioners.
3
4. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Capt Vipin Menon v. The State of Karnataka and another 1, wherein it was observed that:
"a father of the child is a person who is entitled to the lawful custody of the child and he will not come within the scope of Section 361 IPC even if he takes away the child from the keeping of the mother. She may be a lawful guardian as against any others except the father or any other person who has been appointed as the legal guardian by virtue of an order of a competent Court. So long as there is no divestment of the right of the guardianship of a father, a father cannot be guilty of an offence under 361 IPC".
5. Learned counsel therefore submits that the petitioners are not liable for prosecution under Sections 363, 355 read with 34 IPC, as such prayed the Court to quash the proceedings.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations against the natural guardian who is the father of baby are false and he is entitled for the custody of the child being a natural guardian and there is no incident took place as stated by the defacto complainant and further submitted that the allegations are vague in nature and there cannot be any offence under Sections 363 and 355 IPC.
1 1992 CrlLJ3737 4
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and there is offence under Section 355 IPC also and therefore it requires trial and hence prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record, the allegations against the petitioners are for offences under Sections 363 and 355 IPC and as seen from the averments of the complaint, there is a notice issued by the CWC to the defacto complainant herein, took the child Stephy Graph to the CWC and then others are waiting in the car outside the compound wall of Juvenile Home and petitioner No.1 went inside the Juvenile Home and on their advice came to the car, opened the car door and forcefully taken the Stephy Graph from his daughter's hands while his daughter resisted to the wishes, pushed her to the ground and she has sustained injuries to the right hand; and he mentioned the names of three persons, petitioner No.1 is the father of the baby and the allegation against him he forcibly took away the daughter, and the allegation against petitioners 2 and 3 are that they obstructed the daughter of respondent No.2 when she tried to take Stephy Graph.
10. Therefore, the allegations against petitioners 2 and 3 are only omnibus allegations and they do not constitute offence against the said persons whereas the allegations against petitioner No.1 is that he forcibly took away the daughter from the hands of the daughter of 5 respondent No.2 and he thrown her on the ground and she sustained injuries. Whether he is lawful guardian and entitled to the custody of the child, and the respondent No.2's daughter Lalitha sustained injuries requires trial.
11. Accordingly, the petition against petitioner/accused No.1 is dismissed. However, except obstructing the daughter of respondent No.2, there are no allegations against petitioners 2 and 3 / accused Nos.2 and 3; and therefore the petition against petitioners 2 and 3 is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.281 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________ K. SUJANA, J 24th April, 2024 ksm