Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pushpender Singh Tanwar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 November, 2024
APHC010091812022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1798/2022
Between:
Pushpender Singh Tanwar and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. AVANIJA INUGANTI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA
The Court made the following ORDER:
1. The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short, "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the Petitioners/A1 and
A2 in C.C.No.3930 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Visakhapatnamseeking quashment of the case for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC r/w 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.
VJP,J
2. Heard Ms. Avanija Inuganti, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Sri Javvaji Sharath Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance
for the respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that marriage of the
petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 with respondent No.2/complainant took place on
22.01.2018. It is alleged against the petitioners that disputes arose between
the couple. Learned counsel for the petitioners further would submit that the
petitioners (A1 and A2) are respectable individuals of the Society working in
Armed Forces. Learned counsel for the petitioners further would submit that
only to tarnish the reputation of the petitioners in the Society, the present case
has been alleged by making false allegations. The petitioners did not have
criminal antecedents of any nature and the present case is lodged with delay
which was not explained in the complaint. The charge sheet itself shows that
the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have been residing separately. It is
also stated that even if the allegations made in the complaint are considered,
the Visakhapatnam Court has no jurisdiction since all the alleged incidents
said to have been occurred outside the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further would submit that the petitioner
No.1 filed a Divorce petition against the respondent No.2 seeking divorce on
the ground of cruelty and desertion which pending for consideration before the
Court. After filing of Divorce petition, the present case has been filed to harass
the petitioners to bend them to their tunes. Apart from the present case,
VJP,J
maintenance case has been filed by the wife i.e., respondent No.2 wherein an
amount of Rs.34,000/- per month was awarded as maintenance to the
respondent No.2 apart from that, an amount of Rs.25,000/- as litigation
expenses were awarded.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions
placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Mahmood Ali & Ors. Versus State of U.P & Ors.1, and Achin Gupta
versus State of Haryana &Anr2.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that contentions
raised in the present petition are a matter of trial. The matter is coming up for
Cross Examination of PW1 before the Trial Court. There are clear allegations
made against the petitioners in the complaint. It is not a fit case for
quashment. Learned counsel finally pleas to dismiss the petition.
6. Considering the submissions made,and on a fair look at the contents of
the complaint in the present case, there are clear allegations prima facie to
attract the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC. Coming to the point of
delay, needless to say, Complainant may explain to the Court for preferring a
complaint with delay and if that is justifiable, the court may consider the same.
As such, mere delay is not a ground for quashment of proceedings. As rightly
put above by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, there are specific
allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint. As such the
2023 Livelaw(SC) 613
2024 INSC 369
VJP,J
judgments which are relied on by the petitioners are distinguishable to the
facts of the present case. When there is verifiable material to proceed further
in the criminal case, it is not desirable to quash the complaint. In that view the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
Dt.04.11.2024
UPS
VJP,J
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1798 OF 2022
Dated : 04.11.2024
UPS
