HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Crl. Petition No.11606 of 2013
Date: 03.07.2014 Between:
Dr. K. Sushasini, W/o. D. Jacob Sudarsan, and another. .. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Station House Officer, Baptla Town Police Station, Guntur District rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, and another ..
Respondents/ Complainants HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.11606 of 2013 ORDER:
The petitioners, who are A.5 & A.6, seek for quashment of the First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.234 of 2013 on the file of the Bapatla Town Police Station, Guntur District.
2. The second respondent is the de facto complainant. She lodged a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The first petitioner is the sister of A.1 and the second petitioner is the husband of the sister of A.1. They are arrayed as A.5 & A.6 in the case.
3. So far as the petitioners are concerned, in the FIR the allegation is that A.1 was addicted to vices that the marriage of A.1 was performed with the second respondent and that A.5 & A.6 suppressed the fact of this fact before the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that mere suppression of the fact that A.1 was addicted to vices cannot be an offence either under Section 498-A IPC or under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent contended that FIR is not an omnibus document containing all details and that all the facts would come out during the course of investigation.
6. I am afraid that investigation is not for the purpose of fishing out of information. Certain allegations are made in the FIR which are to be verified in the investigation regarding their truth. Where the second respondent did not make any allegations against the petitioners to attract the offences u/s.498-A IPC or under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it cannot be said that one should wait till the completion of the investigation to verify whether any case is made out against the petitioners or otherwise. I, therefore, consider that in view of the absence of allegations in respect of the offences u/s. 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners, the FIR is not maintainable so far as the petitioners are concerned.
7. Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed. FIR in Crime No.234 of 2013 on the file of the Bapatla Town Police Station is quashed so far as the petitioners/A.5 & A.6 are concerned. However, police are at liberty to proceed with the investigation of the case in respect of the other accused. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Date: 03.07.2014 Isn