Bollineni Krishnaveni vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2353 Tel

Telangana High Court

Bollineni Krishnaveni vs The State Of Telangana on 24 June, 2024

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.616 OF 2024
                       AND
          WRIT PETITION No.1875 OF 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri S.V.S.Prasad Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and respondent Nos.5 to 7

in W.P.No.1875 of 2024; Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned

Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State in

Crl.P.No.616 of 2024; Sri V.Raghunath, learned Senior

Counsel representing Ms.V.Sanjana, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and the petitioner in

W.P.No.1875 of 2024 and learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in

W.P.No.1875 of 2024.

2. Since the issue involved and crime number in both the

petitions is one and the same, both the petitions are being

heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

(For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after referred to as arrayed in the F.I.R.)

3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this Criminal Petition

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against them in

Crime No.17 of 2024 pending on the file of the Station House

Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad. The de-facto

complainant in the Criminal Petition filed W.P.No.1875 of

2024 seeking to direct respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition

i.e., Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station,

Cyberabad to conduct fair and effective investigation in

Cr.No.17 of 2024 and also to constitute Special Investigation

Team (SIT) or entrust the case to the CB-CID.

4. The de-facto complainant has lodged a complaint before

the Police, Raidurgam Police Station, who in turn registered a

case vide Cr.No.17 of 2024 against all the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

'I.P.C.').

KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

5. The contents of the said complaint, dated 08.01.2024

are as follows:-

a) While the de-facto complainant was working in

Medwin hospital, Nampally, she came in contact with accused

No.1 - Director of KIMS Hospital, in February, 2004. He

married de-facto complainant at Gopalpatnam, Vizag,

informing her that he has strained relation with his wife, she

is not in a position to beget children and they started residing

at Apoorva Towers, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

Further, accused No.1 promised the de-facto complainant that

after few months, he will introduce her to his relatives. The

said marriage was consummated and they were blessed with

three children i.e., Arjun on 31.08.2004, Krishna Vaishnavi

on 29.07.2006 and Srinika on 27.05.2011 at Swapna Nursing

Home, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The birth certificates were

also obtained in respect of said children mentioning the de-

facto complainant as mother and accused No.1 as father.

With great persuasion, the accused No.1 signed family

planning acceptance letter.

b) After two years of giving birth to their son and

elder daughter respectively, accused No.1 took them to his KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

house saying that he is unwell with some heart complications

and after the birth of their younger daughter, accused No.1

stopped coming to de-facto complainant's house on one

pretext or the other and refused to disclose the whereabouts

of her son and elder daughter. Accused No.1 started

suspecting de-facto complainant on every small issue. They

joined their younger daughter - Srinika at International

School, Shaikpet, in the year, 2014 and subsequently, they

have shifted her to Oakridge International School, Khajaguda.

All these years, accused No.1 postponed showing her son and

elder daughter to the de-facto complainant saying that they

are good with him at his house and introducing her to them

at their small age will have an impact on them. He promised

to introduce her to their children and his family members at

the earliest. All these years, she used to run the household

with the meagre few thousands given every month by her

husband.

c) It is further alleged that in the year, 2016, accused

No.1 shifted de-facto complainant to the present address,

which was owned by him. Accused No.1 was dragging the

issue and as he was having some heart complications, the de-

KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

facto complainant was worried about the future and security

of their children, therefore, she demanded her husband to

show her son and elder daughter and also to do something for

their future and security, for which, her husband informed

that their son and elder daughter are safe with him and

agreed to transfer the Villa in the name of her younger

daughter and finally transferred the villa in the name of her

younger daughter. Thereafter, accused No.1 started avoiding

de-facto complainant.

d) In the year, 2021, de-facto complainant came to

know the contact number of her son and contacted him over

phone. When she informed about the fact that she is his

mother, he was surprised and told that he was not aware of

the said fact. Accused No.1 informed her son that he and

his 1st wife are his parents. Subsequently, the de-facto

complainant started meeting his son and her husband came

to know about the same. He threatened that he will not look

after the de-facto complainant, if she continues to meet their

son and stopped giving monthly maintenance to her.

e) It is further alleged that in the year 2022, her son

went to U.S to pursue his BBA and used to meet de-facto KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

complainant whenever he comes to India. Later, her son

finally informed her that her elder daughter was never with

her husband. In fact, he gave her to Hema and Prasad i.e.,

accused Nos.2 and 3 (Managing Directors of Lotus Hospital)

who along with accused No.1, showcased her elder daughter

as if accused Nos.2 and 3 are her parents. To her shock and

surprise, the de-facto complainant's son informed her that her

husband also made records of her son showing him as the

son of her husband (accused No.1) and his first wife. Thus,

her husband cheated her and committed fraud on her.

f) In June, 2023, de-facto complainant confronted

accused No.1, demanded him to declare her as the mother of

her son and elder daughter to his relatives and other family

members. But, accused No.1 refused the same and stopped

visiting her house. In the meanwhile, when the signature of

accused No.1 was required for the purpose of passport

application of her younger daughter, de-facto complainant

requested her husband i.e., accused No.1 to sign on the

same. Initially he refused, but subsequently he sent the

signed form with the driver. For the last two years, it has

been a habit of accused No.1 that whenever de-facto KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

complainant insisted him to declare her as the mother of her

son and elder daughter to his relatives and friends, he used to

fight with her. He used to leave her and used to send her

son to settle the issue between them.

g) Similarly, on 3rd and 4th of January, 2024, accused

No.1 instigated her son and demanded that de-facto

complainant should not insist her husband to declare her as

the mother of her son and elder daughter. Having understood

the fact that her husband is turning her son against her, she

decided that she will fight against the injustice caused to her

as the mother. She received explicit threats to her life from

the accused Nos.1 to 3 and their family members. They are

influential persons having influence over media, law

enforcement and government officials. Therefore, with the

said allegations, de-facto complainant requested the Station

House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, to take action

against the accused, in accordance with law, for cheating her,

marrying her under false promise and also by showing her

son and elder daughter as other's children.

h) On receipt of the said complaint on 08.01.2024,

the Police, Raidurgam Police Station, have registered a case in KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

Cr.No.17 of 2024 against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the

offence under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section

34 of I.P.C. De-facto complainant filed W.P.No.1875 of 2024

seeking a direction to the Station House Officer, Raidurgam

Police Station, to conduct investigation in Cr.No.17 of 2024 in

effective and transparent manner. She also sought a direction

to respondent Nos.1 and 3 in the Writ Petition to constitute

SIT or entrust the investigation to CB-CID for independent

investigation.

6. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for

accused Nos.1 to 3 contended that the contents of complaint,

dated 08.01.2024 does not disclose any cognizable offence.

All the events are prior to the year, 2011. There is abnormal

delay of 13 years in lodging the complaint. The de-facto

complainant has not availed any other remedies as available

in various statutes including The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and The Hindu

Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Thus, it is a malicious

prosecution. De-facto complainant met her son and also her

elder daughter. There was no false promises by accused No.1

as alleged by the de-facto complainant. Learned Senior KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

Counsel also referred Sections 154 (1), 156 (1) & 157 (1) of

Cr.P.C. and placed reliance on the principle laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the following judgments:

1) Matilal Chakravarty v. The King 1.

2) G.V.Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others 2.

3) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another 3.

4) V.P.Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and others 4.

5) International Advanced Research Centre for Power Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others v.

Nimra Cerglass Technics Pvt. Ltd. And another 5.

With the above said submissions, he sought to quash the

proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.17 of 2024

on the file of the Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police

Station, Cyberabad.

7. Both the learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for

the de-facto complainant is contending that she is the legally

wedded wife of accused No.1. He has married her at

Gopalpatnam, Vizag. The said marriage was consummated

1 AIR 1949 Cal 586 2 (2000) 3 SCC 693 3 (2000) 4 SCC 168 4 (2010) 10 SCC 361 5 (2016) 1 SCC 348 KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

and they were blessed with three children. She has also

placed reliance on the certificates issued by Swapna Health

Care Centre, Begumpet, Hyderabad including sterilization

certificate, application for sterilization operation, discharge

summary and birth certificates issued by GHMC, dated

20.11.2006, 10.11.2008 and 23.02.2017 in respect of three

children. She has narrated the entire facts in the complaint

as well as writ affidavit.

8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to

note that Section 415 I.P.C. deals with cheating. It says that

whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly

induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any

person, or to consent that any person shall retain any

property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do

or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he

were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is

likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,

reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

A. Section 417 I.P.C. deals with punishment for cheating.

B. Section 420 I.P.C. deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and it says that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

C. Section 506 I.P.C. deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.

D. Section 503 I.P.C. deals with criminal intimidation and it says that Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

E. Section 34 of I.P.C. deals with common intention acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention and it says that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Thus, there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement which

is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 415 of IPC.

There should be delivery of property by any person and make, alter

or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and

capable of being converted into valuable security in terms of KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

Section 420 of IPC. The said principle is also laid down by the Apex

Court in R.K.Vijayasaradhi vs. Sudha Seetharaman 6, Dr.Laxman

vs. State of Karnataka 7.

9. According to de-facto complainant, accused No.1

married her in the year, 2004 at Gopalpatnam, Vizag.

Whereas, accused No.1 is disputing the said marriage.

However, he is admitting that his relation with de-facto

complainant is live-in-relation and they were blessed with

aforesaid three children. However, it is a factual aspect which

has to be considered by the Investigating Officer during the

course of discussion of investigation.

10. Admittedly, accused No.1 is aged about 80 years and

there is a delay of 13 years in lodging the complaint. But, the

de-facto complaint is contending that she came to know about

the aforesaid illegal acts recently and with great difficulty, she

contacted her son and came to know about certain illegalities

committed by accused No.1. Then it is also a factual aspect to

be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the

course of investigation.

2019 (16) SCC 739

2019 (9) SCC 677

KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

11. It is not in dispute that complaint is not an

Encyclopaedia. It is only First Information Report. There is

no need to the de-facto complainant to mention all the aspects

in the complaint itself. Setting the criminal law into motion is

enough. It is for the Investigating Officer to conduct

investigation strictly in accordance with law. He shall record

the statements of relevant witnesses and also collect

documentary evidence. On consideration of the said

statements and evidence, he will file a report under Section

173 Cr.P.C.

12. It is also not in dispute that during the course of

investigation, the Investigating Officer is having power to add

or delete any offences or alter Section of law. He is also having

power to close the said complaint on the grounds of lack of

evidence, civil in nature and mistake of fact. Therefore,

quashing the proceedings at the threshold is not proper, more

particularly, in a matter like this where there are serious

allegations levelled by the de-facto complainant against all the

three accused.

KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

13. As per the complaint, dated 08.01.2024, the following

are the factual aspects which needs to be investigated by

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

(1) Whether the de-facto complainant is legally wedded wife

of accused No.1 or they are in live-in relationship?

(2) Whether the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 got

married at Gopalapatnam, Vizag?

(3) Whether accused Nos.2 and 3 adopted the elder daughter of de-facto complainant and accused No.1?

(4) If adopted, whether it is with the consent of de-facto

complainant or not?

(5) The relationship of accused Nos.2 and 3 with accused

No.1.

(6) Strained relationship with accused No.1 and his first

wife as contended by him.

(7) Whether accused No.1 is having any children with his

first wife?

(8) Whether accused No.1 has mentioned that he and his

first wife are parents of the son of accused No.1 and de- facto complainant?

(9) Whether in school records of his son, accused No.1 has

mentioned the name of his first wife as mother of son of de-facto complainant?

10. The examination of school records with regard to the said factual aspects.

KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

11. The delay in lodging the complaint, and

12. The knowledge of de-facto complainant with regard to

the aforesaid aspects.

14. As discussed supra, the aforesaid factual aspects are to

be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the

course of investigation. Thus, in a matter like this, when the

allegations against all the accused are specific and serious,

quashing the proceedings at the threshold is not warranted.

15. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel relied

upon the aforesaid judgments to contend that the contents of

the complaint, dated 08.01.2024 lacks the ingredients of the

offences alleged against the accused Nos.1 to 3. There are no

cognizable offences levelled against them and even then the

Police, Raidurgam registered the aforesaid crime. The

contents of the complaint, dated 08.01.2024 would reveal that

the disputes between accused No.1 and de-facto complainant

are matrimonial disputes/family disputes, therefore, he has

to conduct counselling before registering the said crime as per

the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

judgment of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and

others 8.

16. However, as discussed supra, there are several factual

aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer

during the course of investigation. Quashing of the

proceedings at the threshold is not proper.

17. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 9, the Apex Court

has laid down the following guidelines/parameters for

exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and

the same are extracted herein:-

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

8 [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 9 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

18. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of

Maharashtra 10, the three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex

Court referring to its earlier judgments including State of

Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (7 Supra) laid certain conclusions,

for the purpose of exercising powers by High Courts under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:

10 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

"....

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;

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 KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

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.;

The said principle was also laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank

Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar

Bung and others 11.

19. In the light of the aforesaid principle, this Court has to

consider as to whether the contents of the complaint prima

facie constitute the offences alleged against accused 1 to 3.

20. As discussed supra, there are specific and serious

allegations levelled against all the three accused. The said

allegations are factual aspects which needs to be investigated

KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

into by the Investigating Officer during the course of

investigation. Therefore, on the said ground, this Court

cannot quash the proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3.

21. This Court, vide order, dated 25.01.2024 granted stay of

all further proceedings including the arrest of accused in

Crime No.17 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S. Raidurgam till

09.02.2024. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the respective parties and also considering the

fact that there is an element of settlement between the

parties, vide order, dated 22.03.2024, this Court referred the

matter to Mediation Centre, High Court Legal Services

Committee and appointed Justice Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy,

Former Judge of this Court, as Mediator. The de-facto

complainant addressed a letter to the Secretary, Mediation

Centre stating that she is not interested in mediation. Thus,

the mediation is unsuccessful. Thus, despite granting an

opportunity, the parties failed to settle the dispute.

22. Vide order, dated 25.01.2024 in W.P.No.1875 of 2024,

this Court directed the writ petitioner to submit a

representation to respondent No.2 therein seeking police

protection, in which event respondent No.2 was directed to KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024

examine the same and if the petitioner is having any threat

perception to her life and liberty, respondent No.2 was

directed to extend necessary police protection to her. Vide

order, dated 23.02.2024, this Court has also directed

respondent No.2 to consider the representation, dated

17.02.2024 submitted by the petitioner.

23. However, the de facto-complainant failed to make out

any ground to entrust the investigation to the CBCID.

24. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Petition

is dismissed. The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction

to the Investigating Officer in Crime No.17 of 2024 pending on

the file of the Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station,

Cyberabad, to conduct investigation strictly in accordance

with law. The Investigating Officer shall consider the

aforesaid factual aspects including the delay in lodging the

complaint, while conducting investigation.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stands

closed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

Date:24.06.2024 PRAT/TMK