THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8687 & 8705 of 2012 Date:04.09.2014 Crl.P.No.8687/2012 Between:
Maroju Shiva Kumar and others.
. Petitioners.
AND Smt. Maroju Jyothi and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondents.
Crl.P.No.8705/2012 Between:
Maroju Shiva Kumar and others.
. Petitioners.
AND Smt. Maroju Jyothi and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8687 & 8705 of 2012 ORDER:
These two petitions are heard together, therefore, disposed of by this common order as per the request of both sides.
2. Crl.P.No.8705/2012 is filed to quash F.I.R in Crime No.374/2012 of Kamareddy Police Station, Nizamabad District for alleged offences under Sections 384, 420, 323, 504, 506, 294 & 34 IPC, wherein the petitioners are A1 to A4, whereas Crl.P.No.8687/2012 is filed to quash F.I.R in Crime No.108/2012 of Kamareddy Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC, wherein the petitioners are A1 to A5.
3. A1 in both the crimes is husband. A2 in both the crimes is mother-in-law of defacto-complainant, where as other accused are relatives of A1. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between parties.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Advocate for petitioners submitted that marriage between first respondent and A1 was performed on 25-11- 2010 and after marriage, she joined the company of A1 & A2, but her attitude was totally indifferent, A1 with the fond hope that she would change her attitude, lived with her, but as there was no improvement and as she left the company of A1, he filed O.P.No.1334/2011 before Family Court, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad for restitution of conjugal rights and thereafter, she filed a private complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy on 15-11-2011, which was referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, which was registered as Crime No.379/2011 of Kamareddy Police Station for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry & Prohibition Act. He that subsequently on 20-12-2011 in pursuance of a compromise, a joint memo was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy and the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and it was posted after three months as per the statutory compliance and thereafter, on 05-05-2012, Lok Adalat passed order of compromise and on the same day, first respondent also filed a memo to refer Crime No.108/2012 also to the Lok Adalat and from that date, it was posted after three months as per the statutory requirement, but she did not appear before the Lok Adalat. Subsequently, first respondent filed a complaint before VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the same was also referred to police, which was registered as Crime No.175/2012 of Langarhouse Police Station for offences under Sections 292, 293 & 420 IPC and thereafter, father of first respondent along with their counsel approached A1 and resolved all the disputes between them as per which, a Memorandum of Understanding, dated 03-05-2012, was prepared according to which, first respondent agreed to withdraw the case in Crime No.108/2012 and case in Crime No.379/2011 of Kamareddy Police Station, and she appeared before Lok Adalat on 05- 05-2012 and filed a memo before the Court to refer the case in Crime No.108/2012 to Lok Adalat. He submitted that surprisingly, the first respondent, without appearing before the Lok Adalat, filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy, which was referred to police and registered as Crime No.374/2012 for offences under Sections 384, 420, 323, 506, 504-II & 294 IPC read with 34 IPC and also filed D.V.C.No.27/2012 before Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile), Kamareddy and these acts are nothing but abuse of process of Court. He submitted that the first respondent taking advantage of being a woman is filing cases against the petitioners one after the other in spite of Memo of Understanding, dated 03-05-2012. He submitted that first respondent implicated all the family members of her husband only with a view to harass them and therefore, both the crimes are liable to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, Advocate for first respondent submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and the first respondent was threatened and blackmailed and A1 taking advantage of withdrawal of the first case, committed all types of acts, which are not expected from a husband and went to the extent of threatening and blackmailing first respondent for which all the petitioners have encouraged and participated and the matter requires a thorough investigation. It is submitted that in view of the serious allegations, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings by exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in these petitions is whether the F.I.Rs in Crime Nos.108/2012 & 374/2012 of Kamareddy Police Station, Nizamabad District are liable to be quashed or not?
8. Point:- The main argument of the Advocate for petitioners is that the first respondent having settled the disputes with her husband and executed a Memo of Understanding on 03-05-2012 and withdrawn Crime No.379/2011 again filing complaints with the self same allegations is a clear abuse of process of law.
The document, dated 03-05-2012, is filed along with the quash petition. As seen from the averments of the document, it is only an agreement arrived between the parties and it will come into force subject to fulfilment of the conditions incorporated therein. There is no material to show that petitioners have paid the amount as agreed in the document nor that the conditions incorporated therein are duly complied.
9. The other contention of the Advocate for petitioners is that first respondent agreed to withdraw Crime No.108/2012 as per the said memo of understanding and also filed a memo before the Court to refer the matter before the Lok Adalat and also filed a petition for compounding the offence, but the same could not be materialised, because of the condition to wait for the period of three months.
As seen from the documents though a memo of compromise for compounding is signed, when no such compromise is arrived between the parties, the offence cannot be treated as compounded. As seen from the complaint, on the basis of which F.I.R in Crime No.108/2012 is registered, there are serious allegations of threatening the complainant and forcing her to withdraw the cases and that she was subjected to the threat of kidnap and creating terror to the first respondent and the family members by all the petitioners. There is also a serious allegation of causing torture to the first respondent by putting the photo of the complainant in the internet and inviting interested parties to come and enjoy her by paying money and these aspects require investigation. Even in the complaint on the basis of which Crime No.108/2012 is registered, there was a reference about the earlier Crime No.379/2012 and the acts of the accused after withdrawal of the said case and nature of harassment and threat that was caused to her insisting her to withdraw the cases in fact there are specific allegations against other accused who are family members of husband. One of the contentions of the Advocate for petitioners is that respondent is living separately from December, 2010, therefore, the allegation attributed against the petitioners cannot be accepted. But here, the crimes registered against the petitioners are for the offences under Sections 506, 384, 420, 323, 504, 294 besides the offence of Section 498-A IPC, therefore, as rightly pointed out by Advocate for first respondent, these two complaints require investigation as they contain very serious allegations, which attract offences under IPC. In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only when the allegations in the complaint or F.I.R even if accepted in toto, does not constitute any offence then only it cannot be termed as abuse of process of Court, but here from the facts and circumstances, these complaints cannot be quashed on the ground of abuse of process of Court.
10. One of the arguments of the Advocate for petitioners is that the family members, who are aged persons were also implicated and at least proceedings against them may be quashed. But as already referred above, it is not as though only Section 498-A IPC is alleged against the petitioners, but there are other serious offences for which there are specific allegations and unless a thorough investigation is conducted, the truth or otherwise of the allegations will not come out. However, since the other petitioners, who are relatives of the husband of first respondent, I feel that police have to follow directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ARNESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal
N o . 1 2 7 7 / 2 0 1 4 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9127/2013)) scrupulously at the time of their arrest and with this observation, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
11. For the reasons stated above, both the petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Criminal Petitions, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:04.09.2014 mrb