Pilaka Madhusudhana Reddy, ... vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp And Anr.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2661 AP

                                  1




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.15109 of 2014


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

short "Cr.P.C") seeking quash of proceedings in C.C.No.1852 of

2014 pending on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

2. Heard Sri Karri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

Though notice was sent to the 2nd respondent, she did not

contest the matter.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent

is the de facto complainant. She is the wife of the

petitioner/accused. She lodged a report with III Town Police

Station on 08.08.2014 and she was directed to Women Police

Station, Visakhapatnam to report the matter against the

petitioner/accused. She filed a complaint alleging that the

petitioner/accused was continuously harassing her both

mentally and physically by beating with hands and with a pen-

knife demanding her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- towards additional

dowry and Rs.30,000/- for looking after her two daughters, from

her parents. When the 2nd respondent informed her in-laws

about the harassment caused by the petitioner/accused, they

did not question him and in turn, had supported him. The 2nd

respondent informed the same to her parents and raised

disputes before the elders at the house of the petitioner/accused

at Chaitanya Nagar, Maddilapalem. But, the petitioner/accused

abused the elders and necked them out of the house saying that

they should not interfere with his family disputes. On the basis

of the report given by the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.69

of 2014 was registered for the offences punishable under Section

498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City by the Inspector

of Police. The crime was investigated and eventually having

found prima-facie evidence against the petitioner/accused

regarding his complicity in the commission of the said offences,

the Investigating Officer had filed the charge sheet in the trial

Court. The said case is pending before I Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam vide C.C.No.1852 of

2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that

the 2nd respondent made a false complaint against the petitioner.

Petitioner/accused filed a petition for restitution of conjugal

rights and it was allowed and the 2nd respondent had not joined

to lead the conjugal life. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused

filed a petition for a decree of divorce and the same was also

allowed on 02.04.2009. After the lapse of nearly 5 ½ years, the

2nd respondent had given a report against the petitioner/accused

for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act by making false allegations. As such,

the present prosecution under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3

& 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is not maintainable. It is

further contended that the said orders are not set aside by any

Court nor pending before the concerned Courts. Therefore, he

would pray for quashing the said charge sheet against the

petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed

the criminal petition contending that there are clear allegations

against the petitioner/accused. On account of his conduct, the

2nd respondent was forced to stay away. With a fond hope that

the petitioner would change his attitude, the 2nd respondent had

not given a report to the Police prior to the filing of the above

referred O.Ps. There are certain instances with regard to the

harassment caused by the petitioner/accused to the 2nd

respondent with illegal demand for dowry, both physically and

mentally and as such, the matter requires trial to ascertain the

truth or otherwise of the said allegations. Further, he would

submit that there is no merit in the contention of the

petitioner/accused that there are no allegations against him

with regard to the commission of offences. Therefore, he would

pray for the dismissal of the criminal petition.

6. Apropos the contention that the decree of restitution of

conjugal rights was granted on 11.02.2008, and the 2nd

respondent did not join with the petitioner/accused to lead

marital life, and further Apropos the contention that a decree of

divorce was granted dissolving the marriage of the accused and

the de facto complainant on 02.04.2009, the prosecution of the

petitioner under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act is not maintainable.

7. As can be seen from the decrees passed in O.P.Nos.28 of

2008 and 918 of 2008, it is evident that the said decree of

restitution of conjugal rights was passed on 11.02.2008 and the

decree of divorce was passed on 02.04.2009 and they were ex-

parte decrees. Now, it is relevant to note that the present report

was lodged on 08.08.2014, much later after passing of the

aforesaid decrees, regarding the harassment said to have been

caused to the de facto complainant by the petitioner/accused by

making illegal demand for additional dowry, which took place

after granting decree of divorce. Therefore, as rightly contended

by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the report

dated 08.08.2014 lodged by the 2nd respondent much later to

the decrees of restitution of conjugal rights and divorce, is

manifestly attended with malafides and actuated with an ulterior

motive. The prosecution of the petitioner/accused is not at all

legitimate, rather it is frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and

abuse of process.

8. In these circumstances, the 2nd respondent and the

petitioner having parted ways and having taken recourse to the

Courts for obtaining a decree of divorce, it appears to be highly

improbable that the petitioner/accused would have harassed the

2nd respondent. The abnormal delay of nearly 5 years and 4

months in lodging the report is not explained by the 2nd

respondent satisfactorily and does not convince the Court to

continue with the criminal prosecution.

9. In a decision reported in State of Haryana & Others Vs.

Ch.Bhajanlal and Others1 the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid

down the following guidelines as to when the High Court can

(7) AIR 1992 SC 604

exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash

the proceedings. They are,

(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 F.I.R. 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;

(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 concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, 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.

10. Therefore, in view of the guideline No.7 in State of

Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others (referred to

supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the report

lodged by the 2nd respondent is manifestly attended with

malafides and actuated with an ulterior motive. The prosecution

of the petitioner/accused is not at all legitimate, rather it is

frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process. In the

background of no reasonable explanation being given regarding

such delay of 5 years 4 months in lodging the report,

subsequent to the date of granting of decree of divorce dated

02.04.2009, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused on

the basis of vague allegations that he was harassing for

additional dowry, cannot form basis to continue the criminal

prosecution.

11. Therefore, in view of the guideline No.7 in Bhajanlal's case

(supra), the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

malafides and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a

view to spite him due to private and personal grudge or to cause

harm or where the allegations are absurd and inherently

improbable. In these circumstances, the proceedings against the

petitioner are not sustainable.

12. Therefore, in the above circumstances, on an overall

consideration of the entire material placed on record and the

contentions urged before this Court by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the judgment referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude that

the allegations leveled against the petitioner/accused are

without any substance and the material produced before this

Court directly indicates the malafides in the prosecution of

criminal proceedings against the petitioner, so also the abuse of

process of the Court. There are absolutely no valid legal grounds

emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the charge sheet filed against

the petitioner in the above crime.

13. For the reasons indicated above, the criminal petition is

allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in

C.C.No.1852 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the I Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, are hereby

quashed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

shall stand disposed of.

JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

Date: 01.05.2023

DNS

Mjl/*

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15109 OF 2014

01.05.2023 DNS

Mjl/*