P.Padmavathi And Another vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4242 Tel

          THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO 9156 OF 2015

ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners/A3 and A4 u/S 482

CrPC to quash the proceedings against them in CC 3 of 2011 on

the file of XIII ACMM Hyderabad, for the offences u/S 498A IPC

and Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 IPC.

2. The respondent no 2 lodged a report before the WPS, CCS,

DD Hyderabad on 13-9-2010 at 2:00 PM stating that she was

married with A1 on 6-6-2007. At the time of engagement, her

parents deposited an amount of Rs.24 Lakhs as fixed deposit in

Corporation Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch in the name of herself and

her husband on 11-4-2007. At the time of marriage, they gave 56

tulas of gold, 3kgs of silver, 11 lakhs cash, house hold articles

worth Rs. 1 lakh, Rs 50,000 for clothes towards dowry, and

performed the marriage in a grand manner. After marriage she

went to her matrimonial house in Puttur Village of Chittor District

and later she along with A1 went to Kolkata, where A1 was

working in a Software Company. A1 with the instigation and

support of his parents and brother (A2 to A4) started harassing her

physically and mentally, abusing her in filthy language and beating

her on one pretext or other. After some period all of them started

demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs from her

parents and for withdrawal of fixed deposit amount for their needs.

Unable to bear the harassment she came to her parents house in

December 2007. Even after 1 year the accused not agreed to take

her back to their house and A1 to A3 used to harass her over

phone. Her parents arranged mediation with elders in Gudur and Dr.GRR,J

accordingly she joined her husband at Bangalore. When they were

at Bangalore, A2 to A4 used to visit their house and provoked and

instigated A1 to demand additional dowry. She delivered a male

child in Hyderabad. After delivery she went to Bangalore in

February 2010. A1 to A4 once again started harassing her in a

similar manner. Finally in the 2nd week of September 2010, A1 to

A4 picked up a quarrel with her and her parents, abused them in

filthy language, for not arranging the demanded amount and

necked her out of the house by retaining all her belongings with

them. Her parents made all possible efforts to settle the issues, but

in vain. Basing on the said complaint the police registered a case

in Cr. No 503 of 2010 u/s 498A IPC and Section 4 and 6 of DP Act

and after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet

against A1 to A4 for the above offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the

learned counsel for Respondent no 2/ de-facto complainant and

learned PP.

4. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the

petitioners were innocent of the offences alleged against them, even

if the allegations made against them were taken on their face

value, they would not disclose any offences against them. The 2nd

respondent did not make any allegations against the petitioners

during her stay at Puttur. Even according to her, she stayed with

A1 at Kolkata and later at Bangalore. As such the question of the

petitioners instigating the A1 or harassing or demanding dowry

would not arise. The husband of 1st petitioner passed away on 2-7-

2011. The 1st petitioner was a home maker and was residing at Dr.GRR,J

Puttur of Chittor District. The 2nd petitioner was the younger son of

the 1st petitioner and pursing Hotel Management at Thirupati. He

had no involvement in the affairs of A1 and R2.

5. He further submitted that the petitioners along with A1

filed Crl. P No 10073 of 2011 earlier for quashing the proceedings

in CC 3 of 2011. However, at the time of arguments, when the

jurisdictional issue was raised, the Hon'ble High Court declined to

entertain on the ground that the same was a disputed question of

fact which could be gone into at the time of trial. In that view of the

matter the said petition was withdrawn. The grounds mentioned in

this petition were not canvassed in the earlier petition and prayed

to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC 3 of 2011.

The learned counsel for Respondent 2/defacto complainant

contended that the earlier quash petition was filed challenging

both on territorial jurisdiction as well as on merits, the same was

withdrawn by the petitioners. No liberty was given to file a separate

application, as such, the 2nd application for quashment was not

maintainable. Specific allegations were made against the

petitioners herein, the respondent no 2 was waiting for justice for

the past 11 years and prayed to allow the trial to be proceeded

against the petitioners.

6. The learned PP opposed the petition.

7. Perused the record.

8. Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether a second quash petition is maintainable in the circumstances of the case?

2. Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in CC 3 of 2011 can be quashed?

Dr.GRR,J

Point No 1:-

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner though contented

that the 1st quash petition filed by them vide Crl.P.No 10073 of

2011 was withdrawn as the court refused to entertain the matter

on the jurisdictional issue, the order in Crl.P No 10073 of 2011

dated 20-11-2011 would not disclose that it was withdrawn on

jurisdictional aspect. The copy of earlier petition would disclose

that it was filed challenging both on the merits and jurisdictional

aspect. No permission was sought by the petitioners to file any

fresh application at a later date.

10. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied

upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Superintendent

and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs vs Mohan Singh and Ors.1,

where in it was held that:

"rejection of prior application is no bar to entertain a subsequent application. Quashing does not amount to review or revision. Proceedings may be quashed by High Court to prevent the abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice. Fact that a similar application for quashing the proceedings on former occasion was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the questions involved were purely questions of fact which were for the court of fact to decide, is no bar to the quashing of the proceedings at a later stage. Such quashing will not amount to revision or review of High Court's earlier order."

11. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Anil Khadkiwala vs State (Government of NCT of

Delhi) and Another2 wherein it was held that:

"successive application u/s 482 CrPC under changed circumstances or being materially different from earlier application is maintainable and dismissal of earlier quashment application would not bar the same."

12. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the

earlier petition was filed before framing of charges on 14-10-2011,

AIR 1975 SC 1002

(2019) 17 SCC 294 Dr.GRR,J

the said petition was withdrawn on 20-10-2011, charges were

framed by the trial court on 28-1-2014 and the present application

was filed on 27-8-2015, as such there were changed circumstances

in filing the subsequent application.

13. Considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

above cases, as filing the subsequent application would not

amount to revision or review of its earlier order and subsequent

application under changed circumstances is maintainable, Point

No 1 is answered holding that the 2nd quash petition is

maintainable in the changed circumstances of the case.

Point No.2:-

14. On a perusal of the complaint, statements of the

complainant (LW1) recorded u/s 161 Cr PC and statements of

her parents examined as LW2 and 3 and of the owner of the house

in Bangalore examined as LW7, specific overt acts were attributed

against the petitioners by the witnesses. The witnesses stated

about the presence of the petitioners on 7-9-2010 at Bangalore

when the complainant and her parents were necked out from the

house on wearing apparel. The complainant specifically stated that

when they were at Bangalore, her parents-in-law and brother-in-

law provoked and instigated A1 to demand additional dowry. When

her husband and in laws demanded, her parents took an

insurance policy of Rs.50,000 on their child's name. She stated

that on 7-9-2010, her parents came to Bangalore on her son's

birthday. At that time her parents-in-law and brother-in-law

picked a quarrel with them and started abusing them in filthy

language for not arranging the demanded amount and for not

withdrawing the fixed deposit amount. When they showed their Dr.GRR,J

inability, her husband and his family members abused and bet her

and necked her out of the house on wearing apparel. Humiliated

with their acts she came to Hyderabad along with her parents for

taking shelter.

15. The truth or otherwise of the above allegations can be

decided only after full-fledged trial.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others

vs Ch Bhajanlal and others3 held that:

" the power under section 482 CrPC could be exercised only when the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or in the Complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out any case against the accused and where the allegations made in FIR or in the 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 then only the proceedings can be quashed."

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure

Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra4, held that:

" power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the rarest of the rare cases. While examining FIR/Complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR/Complaint. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of FIR/Complaint should be an exception and rarity rather than an ordinary rule. "

18. Hence considering the above judgments, as there are

prime facie allegations found against the petitioners in the charge

sheet, complaint and the statements of the witnesses, it is

1992 AIR 604

2021 Latest Caselaw 201 SC Dr.GRR,J

considered not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners herein.

19. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J December 10, 2021 KTL