IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4181 OF 2012 Between:
S.Allabaksh & Ors. … Petitioners/A6, A7, A8 & A9 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Ravulapati Sreenivasa Rao Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4181 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in CC.No. 35 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, Ananthapur district, for alleged offences under section 498- A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that petitioners are residents of Rajampet town, Kadapa district and they are no way concerned with the family of defacto complainant or her husband, who are residents of Bangalore and that there is no truth in the allegations levelled against the petitioners. He submitted that the allegations against petitioners are general in nature and there are no specific allegations attracting offences under section 499-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He submitted that exaggerated version of the incident cannot be accepted and the tendency of implication of family members of husband has to be curtailed and to support his arguments he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in PREETI GUPTA AND ANR.
[1]
V/s. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR . In that case it is held that where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge, proceedings have to be quashed. He also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court; Y.SHAM KUMAR
[2]
AND ORS. V/s. STATE OF A.P. AND ANR and TUMMALA RAM NARAYANA AND ORS. V/s. STATE OF A.P. Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Rajahmundry and Anr [3] , for the proposition when there is no prima facie material against relatives of husband and basing on sweeping and general allegations, the relatives of husband cannot be prosecuted.
4. I have perused the material papers filed alongwith this criminal petition and also 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses produced today.
5. Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur registered FIR which was forwarded to Station House Officer by the Court under section 156 [3] Cr.P.C. and after due investigation Police filed charge sheet against nine accused. Petitioners are A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9. In the charge sheet, specific allegation against the petitioners is that they used to visit the house of A-1 at Bangalore frequently and tortured defacto complainant i.e., third respondent herein both mentally and physically and demanded for additional dowry. Investigating Officer has examined as-many-as 11 witnesses and recorded their statements.
Out of them, LW-10 is one Sunitha, who is a third party, resident of Bangalore and friend of third respondent/victim and she clearly stated in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement that these petitioners used to visit the house of defacto complainant frequently at Bangalore and used to harass third respondent to bring additional dowry and that she used to advice the victim to adjust herself. Other witnesses also stated in the same lines, and therefore, correctness of the statements of these witnesses cannot be decided at this stage. In the decision relied on by the advocate petitioners, there was no material showing prima facie involvement of relatives of husband. But here in this case, the Investigating Officer after thorough investigation found that petitioners used to visit Bangalore to the house of third respondent/victim frequently and caused both mental and physical harassment by demanding additional dowry. The correctness of these allegations is a matter of evidence and they cannot be decided at this stage.
6. For the above reasons, I am of the view that there is prima facie material against the petitioners for the charges levelled against them, therefore, there are no grounds to quash proceedings in CC.No. 35 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, Anathapur district against the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
08/07/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4181 OF 2012 Circulation No. 93 Date: 08/07/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43
[1] ) 2010 [3] ALT [Crl.] 99 [SC]
[2] ) 2013 [3] ALT [Crl.] 40 [AP]
[3] ) 2013 [3] ALT [Crl.] 372 [AP]