Telangana High Court
Gudibandla Shyam Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 19 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4569 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in PRC.No.7 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Yellandu Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376, 307, 506, 384, 417, 420, 498-A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that she had acquaintance with petitioner as a friend since college days i.e., when he used to follow her in the name of love. It is alleged that he followed her up to one year, took her into confidence by his deceitful words and assured her that he would take well care of her but however, in the month of June, 2020, without her consent he has sexually assaulted her and threatened her by saying that he would kill her if she discloses the same to any 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4569 of 2023 of her family members. However, when the respondent NO.2 requested him to marry her, he ignored the same, as such, the respondent No.2 disclosed about the incident to her parents, who in turn, in the presence of elders met the petitioner and counseled him. During the counseling, the petitioner agreed to marry the respondent No.2 but after sometime, his family demanded an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- towards the dowry. However, after negligence on multiple occasions, ultimately, the petitioner married respondent NO.2 on 30.12.2021. Even after marriage, the petitioner allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to which the family of respondent NO.2 gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and in spite of the same, the petitioner abused the respondent NO.2 in filthy language and harassed her.
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police investigated the case and upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against nine accused persons, whereunder, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/accused No.1 filed this Criminal Petition praying to quash the proceedings against him.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.4569 of 2023
4. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations raised against the petitioner are baseless and vague and are without any evidence on record. He contended that originally, it is the petitioner who is aggrieved person in the hands of the respondent NO.2 and due to her unsocial activities, the petitioner also approached the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate, at Yellandu and filed a private complaint. He further contended that the petitioner has filed total of three writ petitions viz., WP.Nos.8741, 32362 and 32597 of 2022 against the respondent No.2 due to failure of Yellandu Police in non-initiating to conduct the proper and necessary investigation due to which the Police bore a grudge against the petitioner, as such, by colluding with the respondent No.2, the Police implicated the petitioner in false case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the petitioner also filed O.P.No.751 of 2022 before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, seeking to declare the 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4569 of 2023 marriage of petitioner and respondent No.2 as null and void. He contended that the remand report does not contain any contents which discloses as to how the respondent No.2 was raped by petitioner and no specific date or time is stated by the respondent No.2. Therefore, he asserted that the alleged Sections of law are not applicable in the case of petitioner and prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner/accused No.1 with regard to rape, abuse, cheating and physical harassment are serious in nature and asserted that the matter requires full- fledged trial. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that according to the prosecution and as per the contents of complaint the petitioner attempted to follow the respondent No.2 for about one year, took her into confidence by his deceitful words and assured her that he would take well care of her but then in the month of June, 2020, without her consent 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4569 of 2023 he has sexually assaulted her and threatened her of dire consequences by saying that he would kill her if she discloses the same to any of her family members. It was further alleged that the petitioner along with his family has harassed the respondent NO.2 for dowry and also abused her in filthy language and that therefore, after grabbing enough amount from the family of respondent NO.2, the petitioner along with his family locked his house and started residing in Hyderabad and has not even responded to the calls of petitioner since then.
9. Perusing the contents of complaint would clearly reveal that initially the petitioner has allegedly followed the respondent No.2 and has also sexually harassed her without her consent. Further, on the pretext of marrying the respondent NO.2, the petitioner has allegedly demanded huge amounts to the family of respondent No.2 and it is also seen that there was exchange of huge amounts on several occasions between the petitioner and the family members of respondent NO.2. That apart, after receiving certain amounts, the petitioner abruptly left his place and shifted to Hyderabad and is also ignoring to respondent to the phone calls of respondent NO.2.
6
SKS,J Crl.P.No.4569 of 2023
10. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 1, whereunder, in paragraph No.10 it was categorically held as under:
"10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4569 of 2023 exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."
11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 2, observed as under:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
12. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is noted that the contention of learned counsel for petitioner is 2 (2012) 10 SCC 155 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4569 of 2023 that petitioner filed O.P.No.751 of 2022 for declaration of marriage as null and void and the same shows that the marriage between the parties took place but the same is denied by the petitioner. As there are disputed facts in this case, it can be concluded that there are triable issues in the matter and the same can be decided only after full fledged trial. Further, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh (supra) and in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (supra 1), this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:19.06.2024 PT