Telangana High Court
Bollineni Krishnaveni vs The State Of Telangana on 24 June, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.616 OF 2024
AND
WRIT PETITION No.1875 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.V.S.Prasad Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and respondent Nos.5 to 7 in W.P.No.1875 of 2024; Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024; Sri V.Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.V.Sanjana, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and the petitioner in W.P.No.1875 of 2024 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.1875 of 2024.
2. Since the issue involved and crime number in both the petitions is one and the same, both the petitions are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.
KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 2 (For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after referred to as arrayed in the F.I.R.)
3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.17 of 2024 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad. The de-facto complainant in the Criminal Petition filed W.P.No.1875 of 2024 seeking to direct respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition i.e., Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad to conduct fair and effective investigation in Cr.No.17 of 2024 and also to constitute Special Investigation Team (SIT) or entrust the case to the CB-CID.
4. The de-facto complainant has lodged a complaint before the Police, Raidurgam Police Station, who in turn registered a case vide Cr.No.17 of 2024 against all the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.').
KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 3
5. The contents of the said complaint, dated 08.01.2024 are as follows:-
a) While the de-facto complainant was working in Medwin hospital, Nampally, she came in contact with accused No.1 - Director of KIMS Hospital, in February, 2004. He married de-facto complainant at Gopalpatnam, Vizag, informing her that he has strained relation with his wife, she is not in a position to beget children and they started residing at Apoorva Towers, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
Further, accused No.1 promised the de-facto complainant that after few months, he will introduce her to his relatives. The said marriage was consummated and they were blessed with three children i.e., Arjun on 31.08.2004, Krishna Vaishnavi on 29.07.2006 and Srinika on 27.05.2011 at Swapna Nursing Home, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The birth certificates were also obtained in respect of said children mentioning the de- facto complainant as mother and accused No.1 as father. With great persuasion, the accused No.1 signed family planning acceptance letter.
b) After two years of giving birth to their son and elder daughter respectively, accused No.1 took them to his KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 4 house saying that he is unwell with some heart complications and after the birth of their younger daughter, accused No.1 stopped coming to de-facto complainant's house on one pretext or the other and refused to disclose the whereabouts of her son and elder daughter. Accused No.1 started suspecting de-facto complainant on every small issue. They joined their younger daughter - Srinika at International School, Shaikpet, in the year, 2014 and subsequently, they have shifted her to Oakridge International School, Khajaguda. All these years, accused No.1 postponed showing her son and elder daughter to the de-facto complainant saying that they are good with him at his house and introducing her to them at their small age will have an impact on them. He promised to introduce her to their children and his family members at the earliest. All these years, she used to run the household with the meagre few thousands given every month by her husband.
c) It is further alleged that in the year, 2016, accused No.1 shifted de-facto complainant to the present address, which was owned by him. Accused No.1 was dragging the issue and as he was having some heart complications, the de-
KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 5 facto complainant was worried about the future and security of their children, therefore, she demanded her husband to show her son and elder daughter and also to do something for their future and security, for which, her husband informed that their son and elder daughter are safe with him and agreed to transfer the Villa in the name of her younger daughter and finally transferred the villa in the name of her younger daughter. Thereafter, accused No.1 started avoiding de-facto complainant.
d) In the year, 2021, de-facto complainant came to know the contact number of her son and contacted him over phone. When she informed about the fact that she is his mother, he was surprised and told that he was not aware of the said fact. Accused No.1 informed her son that he and his 1st wife are his parents. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant started meeting his son and her husband came to know about the same. He threatened that he will not look after the de-facto complainant, if she continues to meet their son and stopped giving monthly maintenance to her.
e) It is further alleged that in the year 2022, her son went to U.S to pursue his BBA and used to meet de-facto KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 6 complainant whenever he comes to India. Later, her son finally informed her that her elder daughter was never with her husband. In fact, he gave her to Hema and Prasad i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3 (Managing Directors of Lotus Hospital) who along with accused No.1, showcased her elder daughter as if accused Nos.2 and 3 are her parents. To her shock and surprise, the de-facto complainant's son informed her that her husband also made records of her son showing him as the son of her husband (accused No.1) and his first wife. Thus, her husband cheated her and committed fraud on her.
f) In June, 2023, de-facto complainant confronted accused No.1, demanded him to declare her as the mother of her son and elder daughter to his relatives and other family members. But, accused No.1 refused the same and stopped visiting her house. In the meanwhile, when the signature of accused No.1 was required for the purpose of passport application of her younger daughter, de-facto complainant requested her husband i.e., accused No.1 to sign on the same. Initially he refused, but subsequently he sent the signed form with the driver. For the last two years, it has been a habit of accused No.1 that whenever de-facto KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 7 complainant insisted him to declare her as the mother of her son and elder daughter to his relatives and friends, he used to fight with her. He used to leave her and used to send her son to settle the issue between them.
g) Similarly, on 3rd and 4th of January, 2024, accused No.1 instigated her son and demanded that de-facto complainant should not insist her husband to declare her as the mother of her son and elder daughter. Having understood the fact that her husband is turning her son against her, she decided that she will fight against the injustice caused to her as the mother. She received explicit threats to her life from the accused Nos.1 to 3 and their family members. They are influential persons having influence over media, law enforcement and government officials. Therefore, with the said allegations, de-facto complainant requested the Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, to take action against the accused, in accordance with law, for cheating her, marrying her under false promise and also by showing her son and elder daughter as other's children.
h) On receipt of the said complaint on 08.01.2024, the Police, Raidurgam Police Station, have registered a case in KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 8 Cr.No.17 of 2024 against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. De-facto complainant filed W.P.No.1875 of 2024 seeking a direction to the Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, to conduct investigation in Cr.No.17 of 2024 in effective and transparent manner. She also sought a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 3 in the Writ Petition to constitute SIT or entrust the investigation to CB-CID for independent investigation.
6. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 contended that the contents of complaint, dated 08.01.2024 does not disclose any cognizable offence. All the events are prior to the year, 2011. There is abnormal delay of 13 years in lodging the complaint. The de-facto complainant has not availed any other remedies as available in various statutes including The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Thus, it is a malicious prosecution. De-facto complainant met her son and also her elder daughter. There was no false promises by accused No.1 as alleged by the de-facto complainant. Learned Senior KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 9 Counsel also referred Sections 154 (1), 156 (1) & 157 (1) of Cr.P.C. and placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following judgments:
1) Matilal Chakravarty v. The King 1.
2) G.V.Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others 2.
3) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another 3.
4) V.P.Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and others 4.
5) International Advanced Research Centre for Power Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others v.
Nimra Cerglass Technics Pvt. Ltd. And another 5. With the above said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.17 of 2024 on the file of the Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad.
7. Both the learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant is contending that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. He has married her at Gopalpatnam, Vizag. The said marriage was consummated 1 AIR 1949 Cal 586 2 (2000) 3 SCC 693 3 (2000) 4 SCC 168 4 (2010) 10 SCC 361 5 (2016) 1 SCC 348 KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 10 and they were blessed with three children. She has also placed reliance on the certificates issued by Swapna Health Care Centre, Begumpet, Hyderabad including sterilization certificate, application for sterilization operation, discharge summary and birth certificates issued by GHMC, dated 20.11.2006, 10.11.2008 and 23.02.2017 in respect of three children. She has narrated the entire facts in the complaint as well as writ affidavit.
8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to note that Section 415 I.P.C. deals with cheating. It says that whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
A. Section 417 I.P.C. deals with punishment for cheating. B. Section 420 I.P.C. deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and it says that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 11 deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
C. Section 506 I.P.C. deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.
D. Section 503 I.P.C. deals with criminal intimidation and it says that Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
E. Section 34 of I.P.C. deals with common intention acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention and it says that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Thus, there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement which is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 415 of IPC. There should be delivery of property by any person and make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security in terms of KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 12 Section 420 of IPC. The said principle is also laid down by the Apex Court in R.K.Vijayasaradhi vs. Sudha Seetharaman 6, Dr.Laxman vs. State of Karnataka 7.
9. According to de-facto complainant, accused No.1 married her in the year, 2004 at Gopalpatnam, Vizag. Whereas, accused No.1 is disputing the said marriage. However, he is admitting that his relation with de-facto complainant is live-in-relation and they were blessed with aforesaid three children. However, it is a factual aspect which has to be considered by the Investigating Officer during the course of discussion of investigation.
10. Admittedly, accused No.1 is aged about 80 years and there is a delay of 13 years in lodging the complaint. But, the de-facto complaint is contending that she came to know about the aforesaid illegal acts recently and with great difficulty, she contacted her son and came to know about certain illegalities committed by accused No.1. Then it is also a factual aspect to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
2019 (16) SCC 739 6 2019 (9) SCC 677 7 KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 13
11. It is not in dispute that complaint is not an Encyclopaedia. It is only First Information Report. There is no need to the de-facto complainant to mention all the aspects in the complaint itself. Setting the criminal law into motion is enough. It is for the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law. He shall record the statements of relevant witnesses and also collect documentary evidence. On consideration of the said statements and evidence, he will file a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
12. It is also not in dispute that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer is having power to add or delete any offences or alter Section of law. He is also having power to close the said complaint on the grounds of lack of evidence, civil in nature and mistake of fact. Therefore, quashing the proceedings at the threshold is not proper, more particularly, in a matter like this where there are serious allegations levelled by the de-facto complainant against all the three accused.
KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 14
13. As per the complaint, dated 08.01.2024, the following are the factual aspects which needs to be investigated by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
(1) Whether the de-facto complainant is legally wedded wife of accused No.1 or they are in live-in relationship? (2) Whether the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 got married at Gopalapatnam, Vizag?
(3) Whether accused Nos.2 and 3 adopted the elder daughter of de-facto complainant and accused No.1? (4) If adopted, whether it is with the consent of de-facto complainant or not?
(5) The relationship of accused Nos.2 and 3 with accused No.1.
(6) Strained relationship with accused No.1 and his first wife as contended by him.
(7) Whether accused No.1 is having any children with his first wife?
(8) Whether accused No.1 has mentioned that he and his first wife are parents of the son of accused No.1 and de- facto complainant?
(9) Whether in school records of his son, accused No.1 has mentioned the name of his first wife as mother of son of de-facto complainant?
10. The examination of school records with regard to the said factual aspects.
KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 15
11. The delay in lodging the complaint, and
12. The knowledge of de-facto complainant with regard to the aforesaid aspects.
14. As discussed supra, the aforesaid factual aspects are to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Thus, in a matter like this, when the allegations against all the accused are specific and serious, quashing the proceedings at the threshold is not warranted.
15. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the aforesaid judgments to contend that the contents of the complaint, dated 08.01.2024 lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused Nos.1 to 3. There are no cognizable offences levelled against them and even then the Police, Raidurgam registered the aforesaid crime. The contents of the complaint, dated 08.01.2024 would reveal that the disputes between accused No.1 and de-facto complainant are matrimonial disputes/family disputes, therefore, he has to conduct counselling before registering the said crime as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 16 judgment of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and others 8.
16. However, as discussed supra, there are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Quashing of the proceedings at the threshold is not proper.
17. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 9, the Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines/parameters for exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted herein:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
8 [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 9 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 17 (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
18. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 10, the three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court referring to its earlier judgments including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (7 Supra) laid certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:
10 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 18 "....
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 19 report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.; The said principle was also laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar Bung and others 11.
19. In the light of the aforesaid principle, this Court has to consider as to whether the contents of the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged against accused 1 to 3.
20. As discussed supra, there are specific and serious allegations levelled against all the three accused. The said allegations are factual aspects which needs to be investigated 11 SLP(Crl) No.3869 of 2021, dated 20.07.2021 KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 20 into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Therefore, on the said ground, this Court cannot quash the proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3.
21. This Court, vide order, dated 25.01.2024 granted stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of accused in Crime No.17 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S. Raidurgam till 09.02.2024. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering the fact that there is an element of settlement between the parties, vide order, dated 22.03.2024, this Court referred the matter to Mediation Centre, High Court Legal Services Committee and appointed Justice Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, Former Judge of this Court, as Mediator. The de-facto complainant addressed a letter to the Secretary, Mediation Centre stating that she is not interested in mediation. Thus, the mediation is unsuccessful. Thus, despite granting an opportunity, the parties failed to settle the dispute.
22. Vide order, dated 25.01.2024 in W.P.No.1875 of 2024, this Court directed the writ petitioner to submit a representation to respondent No.2 therein seeking police protection, in which event respondent No.2 was directed to KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 21 examine the same and if the petitioner is having any threat perception to her life and liberty, respondent No.2 was directed to extend necessary police protection to her. Vide order, dated 23.02.2024, this Court has also directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation, dated 17.02.2024 submitted by the petitioner.
23. However, the de facto-complainant failed to make out any ground to entrust the investigation to the CBCID.
24. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer in Crime No.17 of 2024 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad, to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law. The Investigating Officer shall consider the aforesaid factual aspects including the delay in lodging the complaint, while conducting investigation.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stands closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:24.06.2024 PRAT/TMK