HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.8148 of 2013
Date: 16.07.2014 Between:
Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, and 2 others. .. Petitioners/ A.3 to A.5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.8148 of 2013
ORDER:
The petitioners seek for the quashment of C.C.No.358 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. The petitioners figured as A.3 to A.5 in the charge sheet. The second respondent is the de facto complainant. Charges alleged under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC as well as under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are levelled against five accused including the petitioners herein.
2. The husband of the second respondent is not arrayed as an accused, as he is said to be outside India.
A.1 & A.2 are the father and mother of the husband of the second respondent. The first petitioner is the brother of A.1. The second petitioner is the brother of A.2.
The third petitioner is the husband of the daughter of A.1 & A.2.
3. On 30.12.2010 the marriage of the second respondent was solemnized. On 17.01.2011 her husband went to United States of America. On 03.01.2013 the second respondent laid the complaint alleging cruelty, intimidation and demand for additional dowry.
The second respondent also contended that the second respondent went to Kadapa to attend before the Family Court, Kadapa in O.P.No.52 of 2011. Be it noted that O.P.No.52 of 2011 was filed by the second respondent against her husband seeking for restitution of conjugal rights.
4. All the accused filed Crl. Petition No.4020 of 2013 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking for the quashment of the case. On 13.04.2013 the petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to inform police about their defence. The petitioners accordingly submitted a representation to the Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Kadapa. The petitioners contend that police did not consider the explanation before the charge sheet was laid.
5. The case of the second respondent is that all the accused demanded for additional dowry. It was alleged that the husband of the second respondent deliberately avoided taking the second respondent with him to USA. It was also claimed that on 21.12.2013, A1, A.3 & A.4 restrained the second respondent and threatened her at about 6 a.m. at Kadapa.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged threat was patently false.
The second respondent has been working at Bangalore. When the petitioners engaged services of IBC, India to verify whether the second respondent was on duty on 20.12.2012 and 21.12.2012, it was noticed that the second respondent was on duty at Bangalore on 21.12.2012. It was also stated that the cell phone monitor of the second respondent shows that she was at Bangalore on 20.12.2012 and 21.12.2012 and that the cell phone recorded roaming in Andhra Pradesh from the evening of 24.12.2012 till 26.12.2012. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question of the petitioners being accosted by any of the accused on the morning of 21.12.2012 at Kadapa would not arise, where the second respondent was at Bangalore on the morning of 21.12.2012. He contended that the statement of the second respondent, therefore, is liable to be rejected.
7. Be it noted that it is not only the contention of the second respondent that A.1, A.3 & A.4 intercepted her and threatened her on 21.12.2012; it is also her case that she was ill-treated within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. If the statement of the second respondent that she was threatened on 21.12.2012 is false, it does not follow that the statement of the second respondent that she was harassed for dowry was also false. It is well known that the doctrine “false in uno, false in omnibus” has no application in India. Where the second respondent contended that she was harassed for additional dowry by the petitioners, I do not deem it appropriate to reject the statement on the ground that subsequent statement of the second respondent that she was threatened on 21.12.2012 was false.
8. At the same time, it may be noticed that the petitioners are not blood relatives of the husband of the second respondent. The first petitioner is the brother of A.1 and the second petitioner is the brother of A.2.
The third petitioner is the son-in-law of A.1 & A.2. Where there is no specific allegation as to the nature of harassment administered by the petitioners, apart from the absence of days/dates on which the harassment occurred, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that prima facie case is not made out by the second respondent so far as the petiitoners/A.3 to A.5 are concerned. Even in the absence of contrary evidence, the statement of the second respondent cannot constitute any of the offences levelled against the petitioners. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.358 of 2013 so far as the petitioners are concerned.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C.No.358 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa is quashed, so far as the petitioners/A.3 to A.5 are concerned. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.
Date: 16.07.2014 Isn