Telangana High Court
Shirish Nagari vs State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.291 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1532
of 2022 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-
cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 493 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short 'I.P.C.')
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de
facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police,
Pahadishareef Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate
stating that the petitioner has made a promise to marry her,
as such, she believed his words and they were in relationship
and living together since seven years. Later, when she asked
about their marriage, the petitioner started abusing her,
fighting and raising hands on her. On that, respondent No.2
has informed to the parents of the petitioner but they also
started scolding him that as he did not inform to them that
he is staying with her. Thereafter, the petitioner informed to
respondent No.2 that he will never leave his parents, he will
SKS,J
not marry her and threatened her. Basing on the said
complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2022
and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1532 of 2022 on the
file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
3. Heard Ms. Jyothi Sri Vankina, learned counsel
representing M/s. Vankina, Allu and Partners, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S.
Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1 and Smt. P. Anantha Lakshmi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
complaint itself is not maintainable as the trial Court without
going into the facts of the case, simply framed the charges
against the petitioner, which are against to the statements of
respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the
petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.449 of 2023 in C.C.No.1532 of
2022 before the trial Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C.,
seeking to set aside the impugned charges framed under
Section 420 of I.P.C. and for consequent discharge of the
petitioner. The trial Court heard the matter on 23.11.2023
SKS,J
and gave liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to agitate the ground of non-existence
of ingredients constituting the offence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that respondent No.2 filed F.C.O.P.No.1327 of 2022 stating
that she married the petitioner on 19.03.2019 and prayed the
Court below to order the petitioner to join the conjugal life of
respondent No.2 and perform his marital obligations. Later,
she filed the complaint before the Police stating that when
she asked about the marriage, the petitioner started abusing
her and threatened her. Therefore, the allegations against
the petitioner are false and baseless, as such, prayed the
Court to quash the proceedings against him.
5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in K. Ramakrishna vs. State of Bihar 1, wherein it is
held that where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value do not constitute the
offence alleged, or without appreciating the evidence but only
merely looking at the complaint or the FIR or the
(2000) 8 SCC 547
SKS,J
accompanying documents, the offence alleged is not
disclosed, the person proceeded against in such a frivolous
criminal litigation has to be saved. In the above said
judgment, it is further held that the trial Court under Section
239 and the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is not called upon to embark upon an
enquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not
or evidence relied upon is significant to proceed further or
not. However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents
relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and
without weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made out,
the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are
required to be dropped or quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted
that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious
in nature, which require trial and further, under the guise of
marriage, the petitioner cheated respondent No.2, therefore,
prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Having gone through the rival submissions made by
both the learned counsel and having gone through the
SKS,J
material available on record, it is to be noted that on the one
hand, respondent No.2 filed the complaint against the
petitioner stating that they were living together since seven
years, when she asked about their marriage, the petitioner
abused and threatened her and informed that he will not
marry her, on the other hand, she filed a petition, vide
F.C.O.P.No.1327 of 2022, against the petitioner under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act stating that their
marriage was performed on 19.03.2019 at Chilkur Balaji
Temple, Himayath Sagar, Ranga Reddy District and also
prayed the Court below to order the petitioner to join the
conjugal life of respondent No.2 and perform his marital
obligations. Though petitioner filed counter denying the
marriage, the contention of the petitioner in the present
criminal complaint and in FCOP are contradictory to each
other, which creates doubt on the truthfulness of the
complaint. Further, the charges leveled by the trial Court
against the petitioner for the offence punishable under
section 420 and 493 of IPC are not sustainable as the
complaint averments shows that respondent No.2 is in living
relationship with the petitioner since 2016 and according to
F.C.O.P., they are already married.
SKS,J
8. In view of the law laid down in K. Ramakrishna
(supra), if the admitted facts and the documents relied upon
by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing
or sifting of evidence, no case is made out and the criminal
proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be
dropped or quashed. Therefore, in the present case, the
complaint and the F.C.O.P. filed by respondent No.2 are
contradictory with each other, as such, there are no grounds
to proceed further and the allegations leveled against the
petitioner are liable to be quashed.
9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1532 of 2022 on
the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, are hereby
quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________
K. SUJANA
Date: 03.06.2024
SAI
