Pothula Shiva Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 2349 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.1591 OF 2021
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.

No.02 of 2020 on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

2. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2

in the above P.R.C. The offences alleged against them are under

Sections - 498A and 306 of IPC.

3. Heard Mr. S. Nagender, learned counsel for the petitioners

and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, there was no

representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. As per the contents of the charge sheet, it is alleged as under:

i) Petitioner No.2 is the father of petitioner No.1.

ii) Petitioner No.1 is the son-in-law of respondent No.2 - de

facto complainant. De facto complainant performed the

marriage of her daughter - Arthi with petitioner No.1

KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021

herein in the year 2017. Out of their wedlock, they

blessed with two male children;

iii) Two months after the marriage, petitioner No.1 used to

suspect the fidelity and character of the daughter of

respondent No.2 and used to check up her mobile phone.

He also used to pick up quarrel with the daughter of

respondent No.2 on every petty issue, and the same was

informed by the daughter to her mother, respondent No.2

herein;

iv) Petitioner No.2 herein used to support his son, petitioner

No.1, in every wrongful act;

v) On 18.08.2020 at about 22:00 hours, the brother of

petitioner No.1 made a phone call to respondent No.2 and

informed that her daughter had committed suicide by

hanging and she was shifted to Premier Hospital at Nanal

Nagar, Hyderabad, where the duty doctor confirmed that

she was brought dead;

vi) The deceased committed suicide only on account of the

harassment meted out by petitioner No.1 herein while

KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021

petitioner No.2 abetted his son for harassing the

deceased.

vii) Thus, both the petitioners committed the aforesaid

offences.

5. Then, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the

petitioners with Narsingi Police Station, who in turn, registered a case

vide Crime No.671 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences against the

petitioners herein.

6. The police after completion of investigation filed charge

sheet and the same was taken on file vide P.R.C. No.2 of 2020 by the

XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendranagar.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1

and 2 would submit that the petitioners herein are innocent of the

offences alleged against them. They have not committed any offence,

much less the aforesaid offences and that they were implicated in the

subject crime. He would further submit that after the marriage,

petitioner No.1 and the deceased led happy marital life. On the other

KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021

hand, the deceased right from the date of marriage, started harassing

petitioner No.1 to set up separate family for which he did not accept.

i) Learned counsel would further submit that on 18.08.2020,

petitioner No.1 was engaged in his business and at that time, he

received a phone call from his mother that the deceased committed

suicide. If really there was any harassment as alleged by respondent

No.2, the deceased would have lodged a complaint during her life

time itself. There are no specific allegations against petitioner No.2

except saying that he used to support the illegal acts of petitioner

No.1. Prima facie, there are no allegations against the petitioners, but

without considering the same, the Investigating Officer has laid the

charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the Court below.

ii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in the subject

crime.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would contend

that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein and the

same are triable issues. The defence taken by the petitioners herein

KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021

cannot be considered in an application under Section - 482 of the

Cr.P.C. and, therefore, he sought to dismiss the present petition.

9. As stated above, pursuant to the complaint lodged by

respondent No.2, the police registered a case in Crime No.671 of 2020

against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. During the

investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of

as many as 14 witnesses. On considering their statements only, the

Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against both the

accused, the petitioners herein. As discussed above, prima facie, there

are specific allegations, and the role played by each of the petitioner

herein in the commission of offences is also specifically mentioned in

the charge sheet. The above said contentions or defences taken by

them are triable issues and it is for the trial Court to consider the same

during trial, but not in a petition filed under Section - 482 of the

Cr.P.C.

10. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of

Maharashtra1 the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing

criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint

. AIR 2019 SC 847

KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021

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 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

KL,J Crl.P. No.1591 of 2021

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.

11. 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.

12. In view of the above discussion and the authoritative

pronouncements of law by the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined

to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in the subject

C.C. and the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. 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 6th June, 2022 Mgr

. AIR 2021 SC 931