Telangana High Court
Pandrangi Sankar Rao And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 6 June, 2022
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7212 OF 2019
ORDER:
Heard Sri D.V. Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior
Counsel representing Sri A. Raghuram Mahadev,
learned Counsel for the petitioners, and learned Public
Prosecutor. Despite of service of notice, there is no
representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
2. This petition is filed under section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings
in C.C.No.4342 of 2018 pending on the file of II
Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.
3. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2
and 3 in the said C.C. Offences alleged against them
are under section 498A of IPC and a under sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations
levelled against the petitioners herein are that, the
marriage of 2nd respondent with A-1 was performed on
19.04.2014. After one week of the said marriage,
petitioners along with A-1 started harassing the 2nd
respondent demanding additional dowry. They were
blessed with a baby boy through IVF treatment on
14.05.2017 and the entire expenditure of the said
treatment was borne by her father. Both the
petitioners and A-1 have obtained a note from her and
her parents saying that the 2nd respondent has
committed mistake. By showing the same, the
petitioners and A-1 are harassing the 2nd respondent
both mentally and physically. Cradle ceremony of the
boy was performed on 11.06.2017 and petitioners
along with A-1 attended the said function and quarrled
with the 2nd respondent for money. They have issued a
legal notice with all false and baseless allegations, for
which, the 2nd respondent has issued a reply. Thus,
according to her, the petitioners along with A-1
harassed her both mentally and physically.
5. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd
respondent, police KPHB, have registered a crime
No.776 of 2018 against the petitioners and A-1 for the
aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation,
the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of
2nd respondent as LW.1, her parents as LWs 2 and 3.
They have also examined independent witness as
LW.4. On consideration of entire evidence, the
Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the
petitioners herein and A-1. The case was taken on file
as C.C.No.4342 of 2018.
6. Sri D.V. Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for petitioners, would submit that
there are no specific allegations against the petitioners
herein. All the allegations levelled against the
petitioners herein are omnibus allegations. There is no
specific incident mentioned or alleged. The contents of
the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the offences
alleged against the petitioners herein. He also placed
reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
He would further submit that 2nd petitioner/A-3
received electric shock, received multiple fractures on
her shoulder, she got operated. She is also heart
patient and earlier she suffered massive heart attack.
Even then, the 2nd respondent is harassing the
petitioners herein. With the said submissions, he
sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.4342 of
2018 against the petitioners herein.
7. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor on
instructions would submit that there are specific
allegations against both the petitioners herein. They
have harassed the 2nd respondent both mentally and
physically. The Investigating Officer on consideration
of the statements of the witnesses recorded under
section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, laid charge
sheet against the petitioners herein. They are triable
issues. The petitioners herein have to face trial and
prove their innocence. With the said submissions, he
sought to dismiss the present petition.
8. The above said submissions would reveal
that there is no dispute that the marriage of A-1 with
the 2nd respondent was performed on 19.04.2014.
They were blessed with a male child on 14.05.2017.
There is also no dispute that the 2nd respondent has
taken IVF treatment. Naming ceremony/cradle
ceremony of the said boy was performed.
9. In the complaint dt.19.08.2018 and also in
the statements recorded under section 161 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, the 2nd respondent has specifically
made certain specific allegations against both the
petitioners herein with regard to harassment made by
them. The said version is supported by the statements
of her parents (LWs 2 and 3). The Investigating Officer
has also recorded the statements of one Mr.
Gokavalasa Venkat Ramana as LW.4. He also stated
that both the petitioners herein along with A-1 have
harassed the 2nd respondent both physically and
mentally. Thus, prima facie there are specific
allegations against the petitioners herein.
10. In Geeta Mehrotra and others Vs. State of
U.P., the Hon'ble Apex Court held that implicating the
parents of the husband with bald allegations in a
criminal case is not warranted. Whereas in the case
on hand, as discussed supra, prima facie there are
specific allegations against both the petitioners.
Therefore, the principle laid down by the Apex Court is
not applicable to the facts of present case.
11. In Preeti Gupta and others Vs. State of
Jharkhan and others; reported in (2010) (7) SCC 667,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that parents of the
husband therein never visited the place where the
incident had taken place and they never lived with
complainant and her husband. Their implication in
criminal case is abuse of process of law. Whereas the
facts of the present case are altogether different from
the facts of the said case. In the case on hand, as
discussed supra, prima facie there are specific
allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, the
principle laid down by the Apex Court is not applicable
to the facts of present case.
12. The defences taken by the petitioners herein
cannot be considered in a petition under Section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure. The said principle was
also held by the Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji
Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra1, 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
. AIR 2019 SC 847
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 the High Court to quash the same. It was not
necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should
be done before trial to find out whether the case would
end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a
reading of the 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 the 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
a complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only
relevant question was whether averments in the
complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or
not. The Court has to consider whether complaint
discloses any prima facie offences that were alleged
against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of
the said allegations has to be decided only during trial.
At the initial stage of issuance of process, it was not
open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into
merits of the contentions made on behalf of the
accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed
only on the 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.
13. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private
Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex
Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it
has 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.
. AIR 2021 SC 931
14. As stated supra, prima facie there are
certain specific allegations against both the petitioners
herein. A-2 is aged about 74 years and A-3 is aged
about 66 years. The 2nd petitioner/A-3 is suffering
with various ailments in cardiac. In proof of the same,
she has filed medical reports. The 1st petitioner is also
aged 74 years. It is also relevant to note that A-1 had
filed O.P.No.977 of 2018 seeking dissolution of
marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The
said O.P. is pending. Thus, there are several triable
issues and the petitioners have to face the trial and
prove their innocence.
15. In view of the above said discussions, this
Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.
No.4342 of 2018 against the petitioners herein.
However, in matrimonial disputes, the identification of
parties is not in dispute. In view of the same, this
criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the
presence of petitioners/A2 and A3 in C.C. No.4342 of
2018 pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil
Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kukatpally.
16. In the result, the Criminal Petition is
disposed of dispensing with the presence of
petitioners/A2 and A3 in C.C. No.4342 of 2018
pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-
cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.
However, they shall appear before the said Court as
and when their presence is required.
17. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, pending
if any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
06.06.2022
BDR
