Telangana High Court

K. Sujatha vs The State Of Telangana on 14 July, 2021

Bench: K.Lakshman

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.2630 OF 2021
                 ALONG WITH I.A. No.3 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:


       The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings against

the petitioner in P.R.C. No.6 of 2018 on the file of XV Additional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.


       2. The petitioner herein is accused No.2 in the said P.R.C. The

offences alleged against her are under Sections - 498A and 307 of

IPC.

       3. I.A. No.3 of 2021 is filed by respondent No.2 to record the

compromise and compound the offences against accused No.2 and

also quash the proceedings against her in the aforesaid PRC.

4. Heard Mr. Ambati Sudhakara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Pole Vishnu, learned counsel for respondent No.2

and also learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 - State.

5. CASE OF PROSECUTION:

i) respondent No.2 and accused No.1 - Sai Muralikrishna

Adapa are wife and husband, while accused No.3 is her mother-in-

law;

KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

ii) their marriage was held on 24.08.2008 as per Hindu rites and

customs. Out of their wedlock, a male child was born on 06.06.2009,

named as Asis Krishna;

iii) at the time of marriage, parents of respondent No.2 paid

Rs.10.00 lakhs as dowry and spent approximately an amount of

Rs.5.00 lakhs towards marriage expenses;

iv) after marriage, respondent No.2 and accused No.1 lived

together happily for six months;

v) after six months of their marriage, accused No.3 came to

Hyderabad and started staying with them;

vi) since then, the attitude of accused No.1 was changed

towards respondent No.2 as accused No.3 started creating problems

between them;

vii) accused No.3 and her son, accused No.1, used to comment

on personality and colour complex of respondent No.2, and even

accused No.1 used to nagging for additional dowry;

viii) accused No.3 used to say that some of her friends offered

more dowry up to Rs.25.00 lakhs and she became giant to their life

and asked her to give divorce;

ix) when respondent No.2 brought all the said facts to the

notice of her husband, accused No.1, he kept quiet or else marriage

would be dissolved;

KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

x) accused No.3 and her son, accused No.1 used to demand her

to transfer the land of Ac.1.00 in the name of accused No.1;

xi) when accused No.1 lost his job, he and his mother used to

think how to extract money from respondent No.2;

xii) to achieve their illegal demand, accused No.1 kept

respondent No.2 in a room and locked out side for a day;

xiii) there was illegal affair between accused No.1 and the

petitioner herein, accused No.2, a neighbourer;

xiv) as respondent No.2 is objecting their illegal affair, the

petitioner herein and accused Nos.1 tried to kill her and her son

number of times, but their attempts were in vain;

xv) accused No.3 being mother of accused No.1 did not object

for such relationship between the petitioner and accused No.1;

xvi) on 12.12.2016, accused No.1 called respondent No.1

through telephone and shown repentance and asked her to come

Ravindra Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad, on which, she along with

watchman, David, went there. Respondent No.2 saw accused No.1

and the petitioner. Both approached her and the petitioner caught hold

of her hands, while accused No.1 slapped on her checks and gave

fisticuffs on her stomach. Then, opened the motor cycle petrol tank

cap and poured some petrol on her with an intention to kill her with

fire. However, her watchman resisted their offensive acts and rescued

her from the hands of the petitioner and accused No.1; and KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

xvii) with the above allegations, respondent No.2 lodged a

complaint with police against the petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 3.

6. On receipt of the said complaint, the police of Madhapur

(Guttala Begumpet) Police Station registered a case in Crime No.782

of 2016, dated 13.12.2016 against the petitioner herein and accused

Nos.1 and 3 for the offences under Sections 498A and 307 of IPC and

Sections - 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and took up

for investigation.

7. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge

sheet against the petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 3 for the aforesaid

offences and the same was taken on file vide P.R.C. No.6 of 2018 by

the learned XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Kukatpally.

8. While the proceedings are pending in the said P.R.C.,

accused No.2 filed the present petition to quash the proceedings

against her.

9. During pendency of the present Criminal Petition,

respondent No.2 herein has filed I.A. No.3 of 2021 to record

compromise and compound the offences and also quash the

proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.2 in the aforesaid

PRC.

10. CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:

i) Mr. Ambati Sudhakara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that the police filed a charge sheet in a KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

routine manner without proper investigation. The petitioner is

innocent of the offences alleged against her. The petitioner did not

commit any offence, much less the alleged offences. The petitioner

was implicated in the above crime. The contents of the charge sheet

as well as the complaint lack the ingredients of offences alleged

against the petitioner.

ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that

the petitioner has her own family, her husband is a Software Engineer,

they were blessed with two children and are leading marital life

happily. The petitioner herein was shocked to hear the allegation of

having an illegal affair between her and accused No.1. The said

allegation is nothing but false. He would further submit that this

Court vide order dated 04.10.2018 in Crl.P. No.10447 of 2018,

quashed the proceedings against accused No.1 in view of compromise

entered between them. He would further submit that at the

intervention of elders and well-wishers, the petitioner - accused No.2

and respondent No.2 entered into compromise. Pursuant to the said

compromise, respondent No.2 has no objection for quashing the

proceedings against accused No.2.

iii) Referring to the said order, dated 04.10.2018 and the

compromise, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

when the proceedings were quashed against the prime accused, the

proceedings pending against other accused are inconsequential and do

not stand for enquiry.

KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

iv) With the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel sought

to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

11. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2:

i) Mr. Pole Vishnu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

submit that respondent No.2 and accused No.1 entered into

compromise and pursuant to the said compromise, the proceedings

against accused No.1 were quashed by this Court vide order dated

04.10.2018 in Crl.P. No.10447 of 2018.

ii) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would further submit

that during pendency of the present petition, even accused No.2 and

respondent No.2 entered into compromise and in view of the said

compromise, respondent No.2 herein has no objection to quash the

proceedings against accused No.2 also. Accordingly, respondent No.2

filed I.A. No.3 of 2021 along with her affidavit and joint memo to the

effect that there was compromise between the parties and that

respondent No.2 has no objection for quashing the proceedings against

accused No.2.

iii) With the said contentions, the learned counsel for

respondent No.2 sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

- accused No.2.

12. CONTENTIONS OF PROSECUTION:

i) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the

police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

after collecting the evidence, both oral and documentary. There are

serious allegations against the petitioner which cannot be considered

at this stage. The contentions of the petitioner that she is innocent of

the alleged offences and that she did not commit any offence etc., are

all to be decided only after full-fledged trial, but not at this stage.

Merely the proceedings have been quashed against accused No.1 is no

ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner as the petitioner

has to prove her innocence of the alleged offences during trial.

ii) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit

that mere quashing the proceedings against accused No.1 is no ground

to quash the proceedings against accused No.2 as a matter of right.

During pendency of the present petition, accused No.2 entered into

compromise with respondent No.2 and accordingly, respondent N.2

filed I.A. No.3 of 2021 for recording compromise and to compound

the offences against accused No.2, but that cannot be considered at

this stage and is no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage.

iii) With the said submissions, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition.

13. FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) Keeping in view the rival submissions and the material on

record, it is no doubt true that the proceedings in PRC No.6 of 2018

were quashed against accused No.1 vide order dated 04.10.2018 in

Crl.P. No.10447 of 2018 in view of compromise entered between KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

accused No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Even during pendency of

the present petition, both the petitioner - accused No.2 and respondent

No.2 entered into compromise and pursuant to which, respondent

No.2 has no objection for quashing the proceedings against accused

No.2. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has also filed I.A. No.3 of 2021

for recording compromise and to compound the offences against the

petitioner - accused No.2. Along with the said I.A. No.3 of 2021,

respondent No.2 filed an affidavit and joint memo confirming the said

compromise. The said affidavit as well as joint memo is placed on

record.

ii) Referring to the order dated 04.10.2018 in Crl.P. No.10447

of 2018, under which proceedings against accused No.1 were quashed,

and the compromise entered between the petitioner - accused No.2

and respondent No.2, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to

quash the proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.2 herein.

iii) In view of the above, prima facie, there are specific

allegations made against the petitioner herein which are serious in

nature. It is neither a matrimonial dispute between the spouses, nor a

commercial / civil dispute. On the other hand, the offences involved

in the present case are the offences which will have impact on the

society. Merely because the parties entered into compromise is no

ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.2.

In this regard, it is relevant to mention the parameters laid down by KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

the Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan1

which are as under:

"i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

iii) x x x x;

iv) x x x x;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with

2019 (5) SCC 403 KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

iv) It is relevant to note that the proceedings against accused

No.1 were quashed on 04.10.2018, whereas the decision rendered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan was on 05.03.2019.

So, by the date of quashing the proceedings against accused No.1, the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan was not

in vogue and as such this Court has not considered the said

principle while quashing the proceedings against accused No.1

by recording compromise. In view of the same, the contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings were

quashed against accused No.1 and, therefore, the petitioner herein

is also entitled for quashing the proceedings is unsustainable.

v) The Apex Court has dealt with the scope and ambit of

powers of High Court under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. in various

judgments. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, the Apex Court

cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly

and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While

examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot

embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or

otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint.

The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of

Cr.P.C., which are as under:

"(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 FIR 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.

KL,J Crl.P. No.2630 of 2021

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, 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."

vi) Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner herein are

specific and serious in nature which will have impact on the society.

Thus, mere entering into compromise between the petitioner - accused

No.2 and respondent No.2 herein is no ground to quash the

proceedings against accused No.2. If at all the petitioner is innocent

of the offences alleged against her, she has to prove the same only

during trial but not at this stage. The petitioner failed to make out any

ground to quash the proceedings against her. In view of the same and

also considering the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in

Laxmi Narayan1, this Court is not inclined to record the compromise

and compound the offences against accused No.2 in the aforesaid

PRC.