Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Uggina Nagamani vs Kona Persisurani on 13 April, 2022

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.13821 OF 2018

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.349 of 2018 on the file of the V Metropolitan

Magistrate, Anakapalle. The petitioner herein is A.2 in the

said Calendar Case.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Basing on a report lodged by 1st respondent-

defacto complainant, police registered a case in crime No.39

of 2017 of Women police station, Anakapalle, and after

completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the

petitioner/A.2 and another for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 324, 506 and 109 IPC and 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations in the charge

sheet, in brief, may be stated as follows.

1st respondent-defacto complainant is wife of A.1. Their

marriage was performed on 19.05.2015. On the demand

made by A.1, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- cash, 5 tulas of

gold, Rs.70,000/- for purchasing a motor bike and

Rs.1,00,000/- for sari samanulu, as dowry besides cash of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, as A.1 is working

as a Constable in Police Department. After marriage, the

couple lived in police quarters, K.G.H. down, Visakhapatnam.

Some time after the marriage, A.1 started subjecting her to

cruelty demanding additional dowry from her parents. The

couple was blessed with a female baby.

In September, 2016, when 1st respondent-defacto

complainant was washing clothes, she noticed a slip in the

trouser pocket of A.1 which contained naming function

details of Baby Kelvin. When she questioned A.1 about the

baby, A.1 annoyed and informed that he was having intimacy

with petitioner/A.2 and the baby was blessed to them. Since

then, he accelerated his cruelty towards 1st respondent-

defacto complainant and her daughter, and started

threatening with dire consequences. Unable to bear the

harassment, she informed the matter to her parents, who

placed the matter in panchayat, wherein A.1 admitted his

guilt and assured that he would take care of 1st respondent-

defacto complainant well. But, there was no change in the

attitude of A.1. He used to come home late in night in

drunken state, and when 1st respondent-defacto complainant

questioned, he used to beat her indiscriminately. In March,

2017, A.1 demanded 1st respondent-defacto complainant to

bring Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry from her parents as

he intended to purchase a car, and when she expressed

inability of her parents, A.1 beat 1st respondent-defacto

complainant and her daughter with stick, as a result of

which, she received bleeding injury on her forehead and her

daughter got fracture on her right shoulder. A.1 rendered

treatment to them at K.G.H. and A.M.G. Hospital,

Visakhapatnam. Since she did not bring additional dowry

from her parents, A.1 dropped her and her daughter at the

house of her parents at Mamidipalem with a warning to

return back with the amount demanded by him. Hence, the

report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

petitioner/A.2 is second wife of A.1 and there is absolutely no

offence made out as against her. He took this Court to the

allegations in the First Information Report, Section 161

Cr.P.C. statements and charge sheet and submits that no

offence has been made out as against the petitioner/A.2.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for 1st respondent-

defacto complainant contended that the allegations in the

First Information Report, recitals in Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statements and the charge sheet clearly disclose a prima facie

case against the petitioner/A.2 for the offences alleged as

against her, and in view of the specific accusations, there are

no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.

6. On the other hand, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath,

learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 2nd

respondent-State opposed the quashment of the charge sheet

on the ground that there are averments contained in the

charge sheet and the First Information Report as against her,

and truth or otherwise of the allegations has to be decided in

the course of trial.

7. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers

of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to

prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order

under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court

perused the record. A reading of the charge sheet makes it

clear that all the allegations are directed as against A.1.

Marriage of A.1 with 1st respondent-defacto complainant took

place on 19.05.2015. For certain period, they lived happily.

Thereafter, it is alleged that A.1 started subjecting 1st

respondent-defacto complainant to cruelty both physically

and mentally demanding her to bring additional dowry from

her parents. Out of the conjugal life, 1st respondent-defacto

complainant was blessed with a female baby. In the month of

September, 2016, when 1st respondent was washing clothes,

she noticed a slip in the trouser pocket of A.1, which

contained naming function details of Baby Kelvin. When she

questioned A.1 about details of Baby Kelvin, A.1 got annoyed

and informed that he is having intimacy with petitioner/A.2

and Baby Kelvin was blessed through her. He also stated

that he performed naming function at Kancharapalem, and

since then, he accelerated his cruelty towards 1st

respondent/defacto complainant and her daughter and

threatened them with dire consequences. A panchayat was

held wherein 1st respondent/defacto complainant informed

about the harassment of A.1 and his illegal intimacy with

petitioner/A.2. In fact, A.1 admitted his guilt and assured

that he would take care of her well. Later, A.1 took 1st

respondent/defacto complainant for conjugal life, but there

was no change in his attitude. A.1 used to come home late in

drunken state in the night and beat her indiscriminately.

With the aforesaid allegations, 1st respondent/defacto

complainant lodged a report before Women police station,

Anakapalle on 31.07.2017 alleging that A.1 was subjecting

her to cruelty at the instigation of petitioner/A.2.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that in the First

Information Report, there is an accusation as against

petitioner/A.2 that the petitioner/A.2, having illicit intimacy

with A.1, instigated A.1 to demand additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- from, and harass, 1st respondent/defacto

complainant mentally and physically. There are specific

accusations in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a

judgment in Suraj Yadav v. State of West Bengal1, wherein

Section 107 IPC has been discussed. The facts of the said

case have no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the

present case for the reason that the petitioner is second wife

of A.1 and it has been alleged in the First Information Report

and in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the

charge sheet that petitioner herein had illicit intimacy with

A.1 and at the instigation of the petitioner, A.1 was harassing

1st respondent/defacto complainant physically and mentally

to get additional dowry. Therefore, the above judgment is not

applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

I (2008) DMC 314

10. In another decision in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab

and others2, it is held thus: (paragraph 8)

"8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding."

There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid

proposition.

11. This court finds that the specific accusation has

been made as against the petitioner. In a proceedings under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court would not be in a position to

conduct a roving enquiry into the facts of the case. Prima

facie when an accusation has been made, this Court would

not embark upon appreciation of the material in a petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings.

(2020) 3 SCC 317

Apparently, on the face of it, a prima facie case has been

made out disclosing the ingredients of the offences alleged