Telangana High Court
Shirish Nagari vs State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.291 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1532 of 2022 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate- cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 493 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short 'I.P.C.')
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Pahadishareef Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate stating that the petitioner has made a promise to marry her, as such, she believed his words and they were in relationship and living together since seven years. Later, when she asked about their marriage, the petitioner started abusing her, fighting and raising hands on her. On that, respondent No.2 has informed to the parents of the petitioner but they also started scolding him that as he did not inform to them that he is staying with her. Thereafter, the petitioner informed to respondent No.2 that he will never leave his parents, he will 2 SKS,J Cr.P.No.291 of 2024 not marry her and threatened her. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2022 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1532 of 2022 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
3. Heard Ms. Jyothi Sri Vankina, learned counsel representing M/s. Vankina, Allu and Partners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Smt. P. Anantha Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint itself is not maintainable as the trial Court without going into the facts of the case, simply framed the charges against the petitioner, which are against to the statements of respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.449 of 2023 in C.C.No.1532 of 2022 before the trial Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the impugned charges framed under Section 420 of I.P.C. and for consequent discharge of the petitioner. The trial Court heard the matter on 23.11.2023 3 SKS,J Cr.P.No.291 of 2024 and gave liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to agitate the ground of non-existence of ingredients constituting the offence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.2 filed F.C.O.P.No.1327 of 2022 stating that she married the petitioner on 19.03.2019 and prayed the Court below to order the petitioner to join the conjugal life of respondent No.2 and perform his marital obligations. Later, she filed the complaint before the Police stating that when she asked about the marriage, the petitioner started abusing her and threatened her. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner are false and baseless, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him.
5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ramakrishna vs. State of Bihar 1, wherein it is held that where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not constitute the offence alleged, or without appreciating the evidence but only merely looking at the complaint or the FIR or the 1 (2000) 8 SCC 547 4 SKS,J Cr.P.No.291 of 2024 accompanying documents, the offence alleged is not disclosed, the person proceeded against in such a frivolous criminal litigation has to be saved. In the above said judgment, it is further held that the trial Court under Section 239 and the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not called upon to embark upon an enquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not or evidence relied upon is significant to proceed further or not. However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature, which require trial and further, under the guise of marriage, the petitioner cheated respondent No.2, therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Having gone through the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the 5 SKS,J Cr.P.No.291 of 2024 material available on record, it is to be noted that on the one hand, respondent No.2 filed the complaint against the petitioner stating that they were living together since seven years, when she asked about their marriage, the petitioner abused and threatened her and informed that he will not marry her, on the other hand, she filed a petition, vide F.C.O.P.No.1327 of 2022, against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act stating that their marriage was performed on 19.03.2019 at Chilkur Balaji Temple, Himayath Sagar, Ranga Reddy District and also prayed the Court below to order the petitioner to join the conjugal life of respondent No.2 and perform his marital obligations. Though petitioner filed counter denying the marriage, the contention of the petitioner in the present criminal complaint and in FCOP are contradictory to each other, which creates doubt on the truthfulness of the complaint. Further, the charges leveled by the trial Court against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 420 and 493 of IPC are not sustainable as the complaint averments shows that respondent No.2 is in living relationship with the petitioner since 2016 and according to F.C.O.P., they are already married.
6
SKS,J Cr.P.No.291 of 2024
8. In view of the law laid down in K. Ramakrishna (supra), if the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made out and the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed. Therefore, in the present case, the complaint and the F.C.O.P. filed by respondent No.2 are contradictory with each other, as such, there are no grounds to proceed further and the allegations leveled against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1532 of 2022 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 03.06.2024 SAI