Telangana High Court

Smt.Perumalla Malleshwari vs The State Of Telangana on 3 May, 2024

                                  1




          THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7330 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2

to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.707 of 2022 on the file of

learned Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking case relating to

Atrocities against Women-cum-XIII ADJ-cum-XIII MSJ, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B Nagar, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 376(2), 417, 420, 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections

417, 420 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.2-de-facto

complainant gave complaint to the Police stating that in the month

of August 2020 her parents arranged a marriage with one Pradeep

Kumar, after that Pradeep and his parents came to her house and

fixed the marriage by following their traditions. Since then, they

started chatting on phone and after lifting of lock down, she went to

Pune on her job at Cube Innovative Solutions, even then also they

used to talk with each other over phone. Later, on 26.11.2020

accused No.1 had come to Pune to meet the victim/LW1 at her flat

Mauli Building Food Express and believe saying that they are going

to marry and he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her against her

consent. After that, she got job in Hyderabad and shifted to

Hyderabad and accused No.1 used to come and stay with her at the

flat and had sexual intercourse with her and after that, she was

effected with the Covid, later when she asked for the marriage with

mother of accused No.1 who is present petitioner, she stated that

the marriage will not take place, as she is Fat. But accused No.1

promised her saying that he will convince his mother i.e., accused

No.2. Later, accused No.1 stayed with her in weekends. On

25.06.2021 her menstruations were stopped, so she conducted

pregnancy test and conformed that she was pregnant. Then, she

informed the same to the accused No.1, he persuaded her to go and

get aborted saying that they would lose their reputation in the

society, if pregnancy matter come out. As such, she took abortion

pills, later she went to the present petitioner and asked about the

marriage, but she abused her in most filthy language by saying that

she is fat and not suitable to her son as her character is not good

and the marriage will not take place. After that she returned to

Hyderabad and again accused No.1 came to her and had sexual

intercourse, then he said that his mother is not accepting her for

which she told that she will complain in the police station due to

which accused No.1 beat and tortured her. As such, she requested

the police to take action.

3. The allegations against this petitioner in the complaint is that

she abused the victim in filthy language stating that she is fat and

not suitable to her son and her character is not good and the

marriage will not take place and the statements of the witnesses

also show that the allegations against this petitioner is that she

abused the victim in filthy language and refused for the marriage of

victim with accused No.1.

4. Heard Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of petitioner as well as Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. Despite

service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2-

defacto complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter

would submit that the offence under Section 420 of IPC will not

attract. To attract offence under Section 420 IPC there should be

cheating and inducing of delivery of property. Even if all the

averments made by the de-facto complainant are said to be true, the

provisions of offence under Section 420 IPC is not at all attracts,

and as such, it is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel would

further submit that as regards the offence under Section 504 of IPC,

there are no prior criminal antecedents against the petitioner and

there is nothing in the complaint and no such report is filed which

attracts the offence under Section 504 of IPC. The petitioner is a

well reputed person in the society and dragging the petitioner and

her family into the said case would damage their image in the

society. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that

though allegations against this petitioner are only Section 417, 420

and 504 of Indian Penal Code. The averments in the complaint and

the statement in the witness show that this petitioner abused the

victim in filthy language and, as such, she intimidated the petitioner

and though there were prior talks with regard to the marriage of the

petitioner when marriage of the de-facto complainant with accused

No.1, she was refused to perform the marriage, as such at this

stage, it cannot be quashed.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the

learned counsel and having gone through the material available on

record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the

Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima

facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.

8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra

Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."

9. As seen from the record, the averments in the complaint and

the statement show that when the respondent No.2-defacto

complainant came to her house and requested for the marriage with

accused No.1, the petitioner-accused No.2 abused respondent No.2-

defacto complainant in filthy language and also refused for the

marriage of de-facto complainant with accused No.1. The witnesses

also stated the same. Therefore, though the offence under Section

376 of IPC not attracts, there are averments in the complaint and

witness statements against this petitioner. Therefore, at this stage,

the proceedings cannot be quashed and the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

10. The petitioner also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in N. Raghavender Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2,

wherein it is observed that the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C

will attract when there is a deception, the initial stage and the

2021 SCC Online SC 1232

prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated

someone, but also that by being so he has dishonestly induced the

person, who is deceived, to deliver the property. Thus, three

components of this offence i.e., (1) deception of any person; (ii)

fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any

property to any person; and (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time

of making the inducement have to be proved. It goes without saying

that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention

must exist from the inception when the promise or representation

was made, and also argued that, in the present case also, there is

no deception of any person, only marriage was settled with accused

No.1 and as such, the offence under Section 420 of IPC does not

attract. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1231 of 2012

dated 22.8.2013, wherein it is observed as follows:

" Section 504 IPC comprises of initial insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied.

One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 of I.P.C."

11. From a perusal of the findings recorded in the judgments of

the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra, it is clear that though, it

is averred that Sections 504 and 420 of IPC are not applicable, but

the averments shows that the petitioner-accused No.2 abused the

victim in filthy language and also assaulted her character.

Therefore, at this stage, it is not safe to quash the proceedings

initiated against the petitioner-accused No.2.

12. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh

(supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition

to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is

liable to be dismissed.