HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.9865 of 2014 Date: 11-11-2014 Between Pateru Saranga Prakash and 2 others … Petitioners/ Accused 2, 3 and 6 and The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad … Respondent/ Complainant Smt. P.Bhavani … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.9865 of 2014 Order:
Accused 2, 3 and 6 in C.C.No.254 of 2009 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad seek for the quashment of the case against them. Charge-sheet was laid against 6 accused for the offences under Section 498-A and 420 read with Section 34 IPC as well as under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. It is the case of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant that the petitioners along with her husband harassed the 2nd respondent to such an extent that the same became tantamount to the commission of the offences under Section 498-A, IPC and other offences. The 2nd respondent argued the case as a Party-in-person whereas the petitioners are represented by a counsel.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. Inter alia, in the complaint, the 2nd respondent stated that there was no physical union between her husband and the 2nd respondent after their marriage. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, she, on the other hand, stated that the marriage was consummated and that the cohabitation was for a period of 4 days only. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that owing to this contradiction between the complaint and Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, the case against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. I am afraid that these questions are matters of evidence and when the 2nd respondent deposes, the petitioners may cross-examine the 2nd respondent on these aspects. I do not consider it as a ground to quash the case against the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon Cheeli Asirvadam v. State of Andhra Pradesh. In that case, where no specific overt act was attributed against one of the accused, the Court held that prima facie case was not made out against the petitioners in that case. In the present case, in her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, the 2nd respondent specifically stated that she was harassed by the accused. Indeed, specific overt acts such as who harassed, at what time the harassment had taken place and what was the nature of the harassment have not been stated. However, a bare reading of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of the 2nd respondent would show that in the absence of contrary evidence, her evidence certainly would lead to the conviction of the accused for the offences other than Section 498-A, IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offence under Section 498-A, IPC is not made out as there was no allegation of demand for additional dowry. In the complaint, the 2nd respondent spoke about the demand for additional dowry. Such allegations are found either in the complaint or in her statement to Police. Whether the omission of any part of the statement either in the complaint or in her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement would lead to other consequences is a question which can be decided at the time of trial but not in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I therefore cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that merely because of contradictions, the case against the petitioners deserves to be quashed.
6. In GEETA MEHROTRA v. STATE OF U.P., it was recorded that mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the dispute would not justify in taking cognizance against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners were so sweeping and general that they cannot be accepted. I respectfully differ with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sufficient allegations are made either in the complaint or in her statement to Police by the 2nd respondent to constitute the offences levelled against the petitioners. I therefore see no reason to quash C.C.No.254 of 2009. However, where the 1st petitioner is a 60-year old person, the 2nd petitioner is a lady and the 3rd petitioner is a student, I deem it appropriate to exempt their personal appearance from the Court at the time of the trial.
7. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the charge-sheet was laid in 2008, that the petition for quashment was filed in 2014 and that the belated filing should lead to the dismissal of the petition in limine.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners in fact filed Criminal Petition No.8946 of 2011 seeking for the quashment of C.C.No.254 of 2009 and that they withdrew the same on 31-7-2014 with liberty to avail remedies available under law. He submitted that as Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses could not be procured, the petitioners not pressed Crl.P.No.8946 of 2011 and that the present petition is maintainable. It would appear that Crl.P.No.8946 of 2011 was dismissed with liberty to avail remedies available under law; it obviously means other remedies, for the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C has already been invoked through Crl.P.No.8946 of 2011.
At any rate, where I do not consider that the petition is otherwise meritorious, the question of considering the same on the ground that it is filed belatedly is not necessary. This petition therefore is dismissed. The Trial Court may proceed with the trial of the case.
The presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court for the dates of adjournments is dispensed with. The Trial Court however can insist upon personal appearance of the petitioners on any occasion if the Trial Court considers it necessary to require to personal presence of the petitioners for the just disposal of the case.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
11th November, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.9865 of 2014 (Ak) 11th November, 2014.