Peddapalli Karunakara Charry ... vs State Of Tg., Rep. By P.P. 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1268 Tel

                 HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                       Crl.P.No.16559 of 2016

ORDER:

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.316 of

2012 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Mancherial District, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above C.C., which was taken

cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of

I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The facts which led to filing of the present Criminal Petition

are as under:-

Basing on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent herein,

the Police, Ramakrishnapur, registered a case in Crime No.124 of

2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the

petitioners/accused. It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage

of the 3rd respondent with the 1st petitioner was performed on

21.03.2003 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the 3rd

respondent paid cash of Rs.2,50,000/- and also entrusted all other

customary articles to the petitioners and that the couple lived

happily for three months. Thereafter, the petitioners started

harassing the 3rd respondent both mentally and physically to bring

additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and motor cycle stating that

before the marriage, some others offered dowry of Rs.4,50,000/- to

A-1. The 1st petitioner/A-1 used to beat the 3rd respondent every

day and he also attempted to kill her by putting the pillow over her

mouth and that the 3rd respondent informed the same to her in-laws,

but they did not support her instead they instigated the 1st

petitioner. In the year 2003, the 3rd respondent blessed with one

female child and in the year 2004, the petitioners driven out the 3rd

respondent from their house and as such she has been residing with

her parents. A panchayat was also held before the elders and in the

said panchayat, the petitioners admitted their guilt and promised

that they will not harass the 3rd respondent in future and also

executed a bond paper on 18.09.2005 and took her to their house, but

they did not change their attitude and continued their harassment.

It is also stated in the complaint that when the father of the 3rd

respondent came to their house, the petitioners assaulted him with

iron rod and also abused him in filthy language. It is further stated

that after giving the birth of second female child, the petitioners

were again started harassing the 3rd respondent both mentally and

physically to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and driven out

her from their house. After conducting investigation, the police filed

charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, which

was taken cognizance as C.C.No.316 of 2012.

Heard and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that on

earlier occasion in the year 2008 the 3rd respondent submitted a

written complaint before the Police, Sulthanabad Police Station with

the same set of allegations against the petitioners herein, which was

registered as a case in Crime No.24 of 2008 and after completing the

investigation, the Police filed charge sheet in the said crime, which

was taken cognizance as C.C.No.62 of 2008. After a full pledged

trial, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad, acquitted

the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961. He further submits that the allegations in both the cases are

one and the same and in the subsequent complaint, the 3rd

respondent had intentionally suppressed about the earlier case and

also the acquittal of the petitioners, which amounts to abuse of

process of law. He also submits that as there is a judgment of

acquittal of the petitioners in the earlier case filed by the 3rd

respondent, subsequent proceedings for the same set of allegations

and offences on a separate trial, is contrary to the protection

afforded under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, continuation of

proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process

of law resulting miscarriage of justice to the petitioners apart from

facing untold mental agony and hardship. In support of his

contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the

following judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court.

1. Ashok Chaturvedi and others v. Shitul H.Chanchani and another1

2. Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others2

3. Prem Chand Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another3

4. Konakalla Suresh @ Mukku Suresh @ Rushi and others v. State of Telangana4

5. Amit Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Telangana and another5

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd

respondent/State would submit that there are disputed questions of

fact and the same can be decided only after full fledged trial and at

this stage, this Court cannot quash the proceedings against the

petitioners and requested to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

As seen from the material available on record, earlier the 3rd

respondent filed complaint against the petitioners herein with the

same set of allegations mentioned in the present charge sheet and

basing on the said complaint a case in Crime No.24 of 2008 has been

registered and charge sheet has also been filed, which was taken

cognizance as C.C.No.62 of 2008. The record further reveals that

after full fledged trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sulthanabad, held that A-1 to A-3 therein were found not guilty for

the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and accordingly acquitted

(1998) 7 SCC 698

(2013) 1 ALD (Crl.) 715 (SC)

(2020) 3 Scale 310

(2016) 1 ALD (Crl.) 1025

(2016) 1 ALD (Crl.) 667

them. Further, a perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.62 of 2008

would show that in the cross-examination, the 3rd respondent, who

was examined as P.W.1 in the said case, admitted that the accused

therein never harassed her to bring any dowry amount and due to

some petty differences she filed the case against them and that the

father of the 3rd respondent, who was examined as P.W.2 in the said

case also did not support the case of the prosecution and he was

turned hostile.

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to

Section 300 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

"300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.

(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub Section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub Section (2) thereof.

2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence, may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under Sub-section (1) of Section 220.

(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was

convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.

(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.

(5) A person discharged under Section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.

(6) Nothing in this Section shall affect the provisions of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of Section 188 of this Code."

A careful reading of Section 300 Cr.P.C., as a whole, will show

that if a person has been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction

for an offence and has been either convicted or acquitted of the

offence, he/she may not be tried, once again, for the same offence or

for another offence or the same set of facts so long as his/her

conviction or acquittal remains in force, the exception to this general

principle being that with the consent of the State Government, the

acquitted or convicted person concerned may be tried for any

distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been framed

against him at the former trial.

While dealing with Section 300 of Cr.P.C., the Apex Court in

Prem Chand Singh case ( 3 supra), held as under:-

"In view of the conclusion that the substratum of the two FIRs are the same and that the appellant has already stood acquitted on 07.08.1998 of the charge with regard to forging any general power of attorney of the respondent, we are of the considered opinion that the subsequent prosecution of the appellant in FIR No. 114 of 2008 dated 09.10.2008 is completely unsustainable. In the result, the FIR dated 09.10.2008, the orders dated 18.12.2015, 31.05.2016 and the impugned order dated 01.03.2017 are set aside. The appeal is allowed."

In the instant case also, the petitioners were tried for the same

offences with the same set of allegations and they were acquitted by

the concerned Magistrate after conducting full fledged trial. In these

circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the

petitioners for the same offences would be nothing but an abuse of

process of law.

Accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 in C.C.No.316 of 2012

on the file of the I-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Mancherial District, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending

in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

20.04.2021.

Gsn/gkv.