Telangana High Court
Chekurthy Swaroopa Rani, ... vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P., ... on 20 April, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRL.P.No. 2273 of 2015
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the
petitioners in S.T.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Assistant
Sessions Judge, Mancherial, for the offences punishable under
Section 175 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
The facts which led to filing of the present Criminal Petition
are as under:
The 1st petitioner is the de facto complainant in S.C.No.142 of
2006 and the 2nd petitioner is her husband. One Mantham
Shyamsunder Rao, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.142 of 2006,
was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of
I.P.C. In the said Sessions Case., P.W.5-Chekurthi Aslesha is the
daughter of the petitioners herein. During the course of trial, P.W.5
was examined in chief and at that time the accused was not ready
for her cross-examination and as such the same was closed. Later,
the accused filed Crl.M.P.No.259 of 2011 to recall P.W.5 for her
cross-examination and the same was allowed. The 2nd petitioner
basing on the request of P.W.5 issued a letter to the Advocate
Commissioner, who was appointed for recording cross-examination
of P.W.5 through video conference, stating that his daughter is busy
in Switzerland with her project work and requested to record her
cross-examination on 28.07.2013 or any other day. Later, after
consulting with her daughter, the 1st petitioner gave another letter
dated 06.08.2013 to the Advocate Commissioner stating that the
husband of P.W.5 is not permitting P.W.5 to give evidence and
requested to close the evidence of P.W.5. Thereafter, Bailable
Warrant was issued to P.W.5. Subsequently summons have been
issued to the petitioners to furnish the addresses of P.W.5. On
22.05.2014 the 2nd petitioner was present and the matter was posted
to 02.06.2014. On that day, the petitioners were absent despite
service of summons and hence the matter has been posted to
05.06.2014. Basing on the absence of the petitioners, the Court below
came to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 175
read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and the case was taken on file as
S.T.C.No.1 of 2014 and issued summons to the petitioners.
Challenging the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
Heard and perused the record.
At the time when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned
Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the accused in
S.C.No.142 of 2006 was acquitted and in the said case the evidence of
P.W.5 was eschewed by the trial Court and that he placed on record
the judgment, dated 31.05.2016 passed in S.C.No.142 of 2006. He
further submits that since the accused in S.C.No.142 of 2006 was
acquitted and the evidence of P.W.5 was eschewed, the question of
taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable
under Section 175 of I.P.C. is nothing but an abuse of process of law
and liable to be quashed.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would fairly conceded to
the fact that P.W.5, who is the daughter of the petitioners herein, is
the victim in S.C.No.142 of 2006 and the accused therein was
acquitted vide judgment, dated 31.05.2016.
As seen from the material available on record, it is evident
that the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1 of 2014 have been initiated
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 175
read with Section 34 of I.P.C. as they failed to furnish the addresses
of P.W.5. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would show
that in para No.16, the trial Court has categorically observed that in
spite of taking several steps by the said Court, cross-examination of
P.W.5 was not recorded and as such her evidence was eschewed
from consideration. The contention of the petitioners is that on
previous occasion they have appeared before the trial Court, but on
02.06.2014, they could not be appeared before the Court since they
have been instructed to be present at their office and as such the trial
Court initiated proceedings against them vide S.T.C.No.1 of 2014.
Since the evidence of P.W.5, who is the victim, was excluded from
consideration and the accused in S.C.No.142 of 2006 has already
been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and
506 of I.P.C., continuation of proceedings against the petitioners,
who are the parents of victim, is nothing but an abuse of process of
law and the same are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings initiated against the petitioners in S.T.C.No.1 of 2014 on
the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, are
hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
20.04.2021
gkv/Gsn
