Guruvoju Naresh vs State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1808 Tel

           HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                       AT HYDERABAD

                                 *****
               Criminal Petition No.1792 OF 2023
Between:

Guruvoju Naresh and 4 others                    ... Petitioners

                               And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another.                                     ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:                 26.04.2023

Submitted for approval.



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

 1    Whether Reporters of Local
      newspapers may be allowed to see the       Yes/No
      Judgments?

 2    Whether the copies of judgment may
      be marked to Law Reporters/Journals        Yes/No

 3    Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
      wish to see the fair copy of the           Yes/No
      Judgment?




                                                 __________________
                                                 K.SURENDER, J
                                               2




               * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

                             + CRL.P. No. 1792 of 2023


% Dated 26.04.2023

Guruvoju Naresh and 4 others                             ... Petitioners

                                        And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another                                                 ... Respondents


! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy


^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
                            Additional Public Prosecutor for R1


>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
1
    (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181
2
    (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 254
3 (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 348
4
AIR 2020 Supreme Court 2573
                                    3




        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.1792 OF 2023

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioners/A1 to A5 to quash the proceedings against them in

P.R.C.No.12 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Thungathurthy and also subsequent proceedings after committal

of the case to Sessions Court at Suryapet. The offences alleged

against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 304 (B), 201

r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.08.2019,

the daughter of the 2nd respondent who was married to 1st

petitioner died by committing suicide. On the very same day, a

complaint was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. as

suspicious death and registered as Crime No.93 of 2019. On

17.08.2019 inquest panchanama was held and the father of the

deceased informed that the deceased committed suicide for the

reason of acute stomach pain.

4. On 18.10.2019 the body was exhumed by the Tahasildar,

Maddirala by conducting exhumation panchanama, for the reason

of the 2nd respondent expressing doubt about the death and

suspected that accused might have committed murder and later

hanged the deceased. The team of doctors conducted Post-mortem

examination and gave opinion that the death was on account of

hanging.

5. On 12.06.2021 a private complaint which was filed by the

2nd respondent was referred for the purpose of investigation. The

said private complaint was registered as crime No.70/2021 of

Maddirala Police Station and the police started investigation.

During the course of investigation, the Police found that these

petitioners were in fact responsible for the death of the deceased

and it is a dowry death. For the said reason, charge sheet was

filed for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 r/w.34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

6. On the basis of the crime registered subsequently, the Police

found that the marriage was performed on 31.03.2019 and at the

time of marriage Rs.3 lakhs cash was given as dowry on the

demand made by these petitioners. One month after the marriage,

the husband-A1 started harassing the deceased for not giving

sufficient dowry. The parents of the deceased gave cash of Rs.6.5

lakhs to A1, however, A1 continuously harassed her. The deceased

went to her house for 'Rakhi' festival and celebrated festival with

her cousins and returned to her in-laws house. On 17.08.2019,

information was received that the deceased committed suicide.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that the proceedings have to be quashed as registration of the

second FIR on the basis of the complaint filed is contrary to

procedure and law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court.

Since the crime was initially registered for suspicious death, any

subsequent statement made by any of the witnesses to the

incident should be considered as statement under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C and cannot be registered again.

8. He relied on the Judgments of the Honourable Supreme

Court in T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala 1, Babu Bhai v. State of

Gujarat 2, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation 3 and Santa Naidu v. State of Madhya

Pradesh 4.

(2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181

(2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 254

(2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 348

AIR 2020 Supreme Court 2573

9. The law laid down in the aforesaid Judgments is that there

cannot be second FIR for the very same occurrence and only if the

case pertains to two different incidents then the second FIR is

permissible. It was further held in Babubhai's case (supra 2)

that when two FIRs are registered, test of sameness has to be

applied and see whether the FIR subsequently registered is one

and the same or not. It was held by the Honourable Supreme

Court in the Judgment of Samata Naidu's case (supra 4) that

when core allegations in the two complaints which were made are

same, the second complaint would not be maintainable.

10. For the reason of the Police registering second FIR, when the

investigation in the first FIR was pending, the subsequent FIR

which is not the subject matter of the charge sheet, applying the

principles laid down in the above decisions, the charge sheet has

to be quashed.

11. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the State submits that there are serious allegations

of dowry harassment, for which reason the deceased had

committed suicide. It is for the trial Court to conclude whether the

death was on account of demand for dowry or not. Delay in

lodging the complaint cannot be made basis to quash the

proceedings.

12. Admittedly, FIR was registered initially on the basis of

suspicious death under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. by the Maddirala

Police. The said crime was pending investigation, according to the

learned counsel for the petitioners. In the said complaint, the

father of the deceased had stated that the deceased was suffering

from severe stomach pain and the reason for suicide is her

suffering. He did not have suspicion on son-in-law or anyone else.

No final report is filed in the said crime. However, the 2nd

respondent who is the mother of the deceased preferred the

private complaint making allegations of demand for dowry and the

cause of death was the constant demand made by the husband

and his relatives who are the petitioners herein for additional

dowry.

13. The 2nd respondent had initially suspected that the deceased

might have been killed by the husband and in-laws for which

reason, body was exhumed and post mortem was conducted by a

team of doctors who gave an opinion that the death was on

account of suicide. Murder was ruled out in the said postmortem

examination after exhuming the body on 18.10.2019. The 2nd

respondent, however not being satisfied about the outcome of

investigation of the deceased death, preferred to file a private

complaint before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate referred

the complaint to the Police, Maddirala which was registered as a

crime, investigated into and charge sheet was filed.

14. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners

would not be applicable in the peculiar facts of the present case.

Though, the reason for registration of both crimes is the death of

the deceased, the first FIR was registered under Section 174 of

Cr.P.C. and the father of the deceased had informed that the

death was on account of stomach pain that the deceased was

suffering from and unable to bear the pain, she had hanged

herself. The father further informed the Police that he had no

suspicion whatsoever on the husband and the in-laws. The private

complaint which was preferred by the mother of the deceased had

allegations in the complaint narrating the demand made at the

time of marriage and dowry of Rs.3 lakhs being given,

subsequently additional amount of Rs.6.5 lakhs was also given for

the reason of there being a demand. The 2nd respondent further

stated that she was happy when she had visited their house for

'Rakhi' festival and after tying 'Rakhi' to her cousins, she went

back. Thereafter the deceased committed suicide.

15. Applying the test of sameness, the versions given in both the

FIRs are totally different. In the first FIR as already stated there

was no suspicion of any kind of these petitioners and later the

second FIR was registered. Though the Honourable Supreme

Court held in T.T.Antony's case (supra 1) that on the very same

occurrence, second FIR was not maintainable, in the peculiar facts

of the present case when totally two divergent versions were given,

the registration of second FIR cannot be found fault with in the

facts of the present case. The petitioners had not questioned the

FIR when it was registered but after filing of charge sheet. The

police ought to have altered the penal provisions in the earlier FIR

having received the complaint.

16. However no prejudice is caused to the petitioners if the

second FIR was registered, which was done on the basis of the

direction of the learned Magistrate. When the first FIR was still

pending investigation, the Police ought to have altered the

provisions. However, second FIR was registered and investigated

into by the very same Police where the earlier crime was pending.

The subsequent registration of the FIR and investigation has no

adverse effect or prejudice that is caused to these petitioners.

Merely on the technical ground that second FIR should not be

registered, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

17. In the present facts of the case, when the second registration

was not questioned by these petitioners and further the reason for

registration of both the FIRs was two divergent versions, I do not

find any infirmity with the registration of second crime and

consequent filing of the final report. There are no grounds and

accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.04.2023 Note: L.R.copy to be marked tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1792 OF 2023

Dt. 26.04.2023

tk