Dr. Kancherla Ravindranath, vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1835 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4199 OF 2021
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash

the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.1 in

Cr.No.297 of 2021 on the file of the P.S. Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are

under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned senior

counsel representing Sri Rohit Pogula, learned counsel for the

petitioner herein and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for

the 1st respondent-State and perused the record.

3. As per the complaint dated 02.06.2021, the allegations

against the petitioner herein are as follows:-

i) The petitioner herein is husband of 2nd respondent.

Their marriage was performed about 41 years back. They are

blessed with a son and a daughter. Their son is staying in

Chennai and daughter has got married and staying with her

family.

ii) Petitioner is maintaining extra-marital relationship with

several women including a woman in Chennai permanently

since several years. 2nd respondent questioned the same and

she has requested the petitioner to stop the said relationship

several times. He got annoyed and tortured her both mentally

and physically. He has ill-treated her as maid servant.

iii) On 02.06.2021 at 6.00 P.M, the petitioner, with an

intention to kill 2nd respondent, had beaten her, kicked on

stomach and thrown on the ground forcibly. He has caught hold

her neck, used force to strangulate to kill her. During the said

tussle, she fell down on the ground. He twisted her left little

finger which resulted in fracture also.

iv) The petitioner is in the habit of ill-treating, assaulting

and manhandling 2nd respondent several times when she

questioned his extra marital relationship with a lady in Chennai

as a permanent keep spending huge money for maintaining her

apart from paying to several women for several years.

v) The petitioner has been visiting Chennai frequently,

calling that mistress to Hyderabad and satisfying his sadistic

sexual pleasure by staying in different hotels in Hyderabad,

which acts of the petitioner are illegal.

vi) The petitioner is continuing this type of life ignoring 2nd

respondent and her comforts by covering his illegal and unlawful

misdeeds by his preventive social status.

vii) The petitioner poses himself that he is a very wealthy

man in society having good political contacts, snubbing her

since several years depriving her rightful life.

viii) The petitioner is running a group of Global hospitals

and its branches and mis-utilizing that status even ignoring

legitimate duty to treat 2nd respondent as his wife at least.

ix) She used to bear the ill-treatment with a hope that he

will stop illegal contacts as he is at 65 years of age. She has also

attempted to commit suicide due to unbearable physical and

mental torture in his hands since several years.

x) She is continuing her life with the petitioner for the sake

of her son and daughter and also grand children. She has been

pulling on her life as a deserted woman in spite of her social

status in the society as wife of a renowned doctor and also

Chairman and Managing Director of Global hospitals.

xi) In order to keep the family name and also to avoid bad

name to him and to the hospitals, 2nd respondent thought that

he would realize one day or the other, but there is no change in

the attitude of the petitioner.

xii) The petitioner had sold 70% of his shares in Global

hospitals and got huge money and did not give even a single pie

to 2nd respondent and family including children. He has also

sold valuable properties in Vsakhapatnam which were given by

her father. She hails from a respectable family. The details of the

said properties are specifically mentioned in the complaint.

4. On receipt of said complaint, dated 02.06.2021, Police,

Jubilee Hills, have registered a case in Cr.No.297 of 2021 for the

aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein.

5. Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the disputes

between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are matrimonial

disputes. The Police, without following the guidelines issued by

the Hon'ble Apex court in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of Utter

Pradesh1, registered the above said crime against the petitioner

herein. The Police, without conducting preliminary enquiry,

(2014) 2 SCC 1

registered the present crime ignoring the fact that the disputes

between the petitioner and 2nd respondent are matrimonial

disputes. According to him, the said registration of crime

against the petitioner herein is contrary to the principle laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Curt in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh2.

6. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the

petitioner and 2nd respondent have lead 41 years of matrimonial

life. There are property disputes between them including the

dispute with regard to sale of 70% of shares of Global hospitals.

2nd respondent has implicated the petitioner in the present case

falsely to settle her demands and scores. Referring to

explanation under Section 498-A of IPC, with regard to 'cruelty',

learned senior counsel would submit that the same is lacking in

the complaint, dated 02.06.2021. Learned senior counsel has

also relied on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Social Action Forum vs Union Of India3 in support of his

contention. He further submits that even now the petitioner is

ready to take 2nd respondent to his company. The contents of

the complaint lacks ingredients of the offences alleged against

the petitioner herein. With the said submissions, learned

counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in

Cr.No.297 of 2021.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would

submit that there are specific and serious allegations against the

2 (2018) 10 SCC 472 3 (2018) 10 SCC 443

petitioner herein that he has attempted to kill 2nd respondent.

There is also allegation of strangulation. 2nd respondent has

received fracture to her left little finger. The injuries received by

her are grievous in nature. The matter is at investigation stage.

It is not a matrimonial dispute. The offence under Section 307 of

IPC is an offence against society. There are several factual

aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer,

during course of investigation including the incident dated

02.06.2021. The Investigating Officer has to collect evidence and

record statements. In view of the same, interdicting

investigation at crime stage is not warranted in the present case.

With these submissions, he sought to dismiss the Criminal

Petition.

8. Sri E.Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent would submit that there are specific and serious

allegations against the petitioner herein. She has narrated the

entire facts right from the beginning and also the incident dated

02.06.2021. The petitioner has attempted to kill 2nd respondent

by way of strangulation. 2nd respondent received fracture to her

left little finger and she underwent surgery. It is not a

matrimonial dispute and it is an attempt made by the petitioner

to kill the 2nd respondent. The Police have already recorded

statements of son and daughter of the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent. There are several factual aspects to be investigated

into by the Investigating Officer and interdicting the

investigation by this Court at the threshold is not proper and he

has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court

as stated above. With the said submissions, he sought to

dismiss the present petition.

9. The above submissions would reveal that the marriage

of the petitioner with the 2nd respondent was performed about

41 years back. The petitioner herein is 65 years old and 2nd

respondent is aged about 58 years. Prima facie, there are specific

allegations against the petitioner herein. 2nd respondent in the

complaint dated 02.06.2021 has made several specific

allegations against the petitioner herein. According to her, the

petitioner herein is having extra marital relationship with several

women including with a women at Chennai permanently. He is

frequently visiting Chennai and spending money. He has been

maintaining the same since several years. With the said extra

marital relationship, the petitioner subjected the 2nd respondent

to cruelty both mental and physical. Thus, he has tortured here.

There is an allegation with regard to sale of 70% of shares of

Global Hospital and he did not give even a single pie to her and

also to his children. There are allegations of sale of properties

given by father of the 2nd respondent to her. Thus, 2nd

respondent has made several specific allegations in the

complaint, dated 02.06.2021.

10. As per the instructions received from the Investigating

officer, 2nd respondent has received fracture injury to her left

little finger and she underwent surgery. There are marks of

strangulation on the neck of 2nd respondent.

11. Learned senior counsel would submit that the

petitioner herein earlier worked in Apollo hospital and therefore

he has some business/professional rivalry with the management

of the said Apollo hospital. May be with the said rivalry, the

Apollo hospital might have given the injury certificate. According

to this Court, these factual aspects cannot be gone into under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Thus, there are several factual aspects,

including allegations made by the 2nd respondent in the

complaint dated 02.06.2021, to be investigated into by the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Even in

the statement of the 2nd respondent recorded under Section 161

of Cr.P.C. prima facie, there are specific allegations that the

petitioner has assaulted 2nd respondent and gave fist blows on

her stomach. He has attempted to kill her by way of

strangulation. He has pushed the 2nd respondent and she fell

down. He has twisted her arm. According to her, the petitioner

bore grudge on her and tried to kill her, since she started

making enquiries with regard to extra marital relationship of the

petitioner with several women including a woman at Chennai.

12. It is relevant to mention that the Investigating Officer

has recorded the statements of 2nd respondent, her daughter,

son, son-in-law and security guard. A perusal of the said

statements would also reveal the said facts. Even the security

guard stated that both the petitioner and 2nd respondent quarrel

frequently. He has also stated about the quarrel occurred on

02.06.2021.According to him, 2nd respondent came out of the

house weeping. Swathi, Cook, followed her on her bike. As per

the statements of daughter and son-in-law of 2nd respondent,

they found 2nd respondent on the bike of said Cook at butterfly

garden. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against

the petitioner herein. There are several factual aspects to be

investigated into by the Investigating officer during the course of

investigation.

13. It is also relevant to note that in the injury certificate

issued by Apollo Hospital, it is mentioned that 2nd respondent

was admitted in hospital on 03.06.2021 and discharged on

04.06.2021. Injuries mentioned therein are as follows:-

"1. Swelling dislocation of the left hand little finger.

2. Strangulation marks on the neck."

14. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of

Maharashtra4, the three judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court

referring to its earlier judgments including State of Haryana Vs.

Bhajanlal5 laid certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising

powers by High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C which are as

under:

"....

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an 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 made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;

2021 SCC OnLine SC 315

1992 AIR 604

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the

allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.;

15. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision rendered

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v.

The State of Maharashtra6, wherein the Apex Court has

categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called

for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence,

or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out

in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had

been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash

same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case

should be done before trial to find out whether case would end

in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of

complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the

statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are

disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to

interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects

which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal,

were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that

stage, only question relevant was whether averments in

complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The

Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima

facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents.

Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided

only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not

. AIR 2019 SC 847

open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of

the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal

complaints could not be quashed only on ground that,

allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If

ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie

made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be

interdicted.

16. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited

Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors7, the Hon'ble Apex

Court referring to the various judgments rendered by it

categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the

proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with

extreme caution.

17. In Lalita Kumari (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held

that preliminary enquiry has to be conducted where the disputes

are with regard to matrimonial disputes/family disputes. It is

further held that the scope of preliminary enquiry is not to verify

the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to

ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable

offence.

18. As stated above, apart from the matrimonial disputes,

prima facie, there is specific allegation against the petitioner

herein that he has attempted to kill the 2nd respondent.

Therefore, according to this Court, conducting of preliminary

enquiry in the present case is not mandated.

AIR 2021 SC 931,

19. In Rajesh Sharma and Social action Forum(supra),

the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with misuse of Section

498-A of IPC, need to check tendency to rope in all the family

members by making omnibus allegations to settle matrimonial

disputes. Apex Court gave certain directions. As discussed

supra, apart from matrimonial disputes, there is specific

allegation of attempt to kill 2nd respondent by the petitioner.

Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the

present case.

20. As discussed above, the First Information Report is at

investigating stage. It is not an encyclopedia. The Investigating

Officer has to complete the investigation by recording the

statements of eye witnesses and circumstantial witnesses etc.

Therefore, according to this Court, it is not warranted to

interdict the investigation in the present crime i.e. Cr.No.297 of

2021, more particularly, where there are specific and serious

allegations against the petitioner herein supported by medical

evidence.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle

laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, the

petitioner herein failed to establish any ground for quashing the

proceedings by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under

Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the present petition fails

and is liable to be dismissed.

22. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:24.06.2021.

Note: Issue copy by 28.06.2021.

vvr