HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.3102 of 2013 Date: 04-7-2014 Between Smt. Nirmalamma and 3 others … Petitioners/ Accused 2 to 5 and The S.H.O., Women P.S., Mahabubnagar District, Rep. by its P.P., A.P. High Court, Hyderabad … Respondent Smt. Manda Shirisha … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.3102 of 2013 Order:
The petitioners are accused 2 to 5 in C.C.No.695 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar. A charge-sheet was laid against them for the offences under Section 498-A, IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (D.P.Act, for short). The petitioners sought for the quashment of the same against them. Be it noted that the 1st accused, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent, did not choose to file any petition.
2. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the 1st accused. Petitioner No.3 is the sister of the 1st accused. Petitioner No.4 is the husband of the 3rd petitioner. Petitioners 1 to 4 are accused 2 to 5.
It is the case of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant that the petitioners as well as the 1st accused harassed her for additional dowry and drove her out of the matrimonial home. In a badly worded charge-sheet, Police claimed that accused 1 to 5 were guilty of the offences under Section 498-A, IPC as well as under Sections 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd respondent did not make concrete allegations against the petitioners in her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the allegations are against the 1st accused. He submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners.
4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA v.
UNION OF INDIA
[1]
. The Supreme Court commented that Section 498-A, IPC is oft misused. However, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional validity of Section 498-A, IPC did not depend upon its misuse.
The Court found Section 498-A, IPC intra vires against the constitution. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to this decision merely to show that the complaints made in respect of the offence under Section 498-A, IPC cannot be accepted at their face value. Be it noted that in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is to examine whether a prima facie case is made out if the contents of the complaint are accepted at their face value.
I may examine whether the contents constitute an offence against the petitioners.
[2]
5. In SUNIL BAJAJ V. STATE OF M.P. , the Supreme Court reversed the conviction for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC. However, the facts of the said case have no application to the present circumstances.
[3]
6. In Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar , the Investigating Officers were cautioned that the duty of the Investigating Officers is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the present case, in fact none of the allegations have been established prima facie.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred
[4]
to GEETA MEHROTRA v. STATE OF U.P. .
In a matrimonial dispute, there was casual reference to the family members of the husband in the First Information Report (FIR) as co-accused of the husband. There was no specific allegation and prima facie case against the accused. The Supreme Court considered it appropriate to quash the case against the co-accused of the accused.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners herein. The charge-sheet disclosed that the present petitioners also threatened the 2nd respondent and demanded her for additional dowry. It is also recorded that the petitioners drove out the 2nd respondent from the matrimonial home and even planned to kill her. Thus, the offences prima facie are made out against the petitioners. I therefore consider that it is a fit case where the petitioners shall face trial and seek for acquittal in the event they are not guilty of the allegations levelled against them. So far as the quash petition is concerned, I see no merits in the petition. This petition therefore deserves to be dismissed.
9. The petitioners 1 and 2, who are accused 2 and 3, are senior citizens. Petitioners 3 and 4 are Government Teacher and Government Junior Lecturer respectively. I therefore consider that it would be appropriate to request the Trial Court not to insist upon the regular presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court except when needed.
10. Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of requesting the Trial Court to proceed with the trial of C.C.No.695 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, however, is requested not to insist upon the presence of the petitioners-accused 2 to 5 before the Trial Court except when their presence is necessary for the purpose of the disposal of the case. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
04th July, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.3102 of 2013 04th July, 2014. (Ak)
[1] 2005 SCC (Cri) 1473
[2] 2001 (7) Supreme 456
[3] AIR 1974 SC 1822
[4] (2012) 10 SCC 741