Ashok vs Jyoti

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 299/2012 on the file of JMFC, Chincholi.

The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are:

"A lady by name Jyothi @ Puttamma W/o. Ashok -petitioner No. 1 lodged first information report stating that her marriage was taken place with petitioner No. 1 on 20.05.2011. At the time of marriage, there was demand by her husband with regard to dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-, gold and other household articles. At that point of time, by giving certain articles marriage was performed. After the marriage, she went to the house of accused No. 1/petitioner No. 1 and started living in his house. It is stated that her mother-in-law-Ambawwa and sister-in-law-Shanthamma and Mahadevappa S/o. Manikappa were all residing in the said house. For about two months, they looked after her with love and affection and thereafter, started demanding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in order to ward off their loan. They have physically and mentally ill-treated and harassed her in demand of such money. In this background, she was sent out of the petitioners'' house and she went to her parents'' house. Later, on 25.04.2012, it is alleged that petitioner No. 1 and her family members have quarreled with the father of the complainant and abused them. Particularly, it is alleged that on 06.05.2012 at about 11.00 a.m. when the complainant was in her parents house and when her parents were gone to the field, all the petitioners herein had been to the house of the complainant; abused her in filthy language; dragged her outside the house; assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequences of killing her. On these allegations a case was registered in Crime No. 49/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961." 3. It seems that after thorough investigation, police have filed charge sheet. The entire charge sheet papers are not before this Court as to ascertain who are all the witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer and what exactly the statement of those witnesses and how the prosecution would like to implicate the accused persons to the crime for the alleged offences. The records disclose that the accused persons have already made their appearance before the Trial Court and the case is now set down for hearing before charge. At this juncture, petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings.

Quashing of the proceedings have to be very carefully dealt with by the Court. In a rarest of the rare case where the allegations made in the first information report or if the charge sheet is filed, after going through the charge sheet papers if the Court is of the opinion that no semblance of material is available to constitute any offence alleged against the petitioners, then the Court can quash such proceedings or if the Trial Court while taking cognizance has not followed any legal procedure or if there are any legal lapse and if the initiation of the proceedings itself is irregular or illegal which suffer from incurable defect then the Court can quash the proceedings or if the material disclose that in order to wreck vengeance the complaint is filed, then also the Court can quash the proceedings. When plain reading of the complaint allegations made against the petitioners constitute any offence, the Court cannot quash such proceedings. When the first information report is concluded and the charge sheet is filed, the Court has to go through the charge sheet papers meticulously and thereafter come to the conclusion whether there are any material to frame charge against the petitioners. At this juncture, the allegations made even broadly understood are sufficient to constitute some offences. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

It is worth to note here a decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa and Another, , wherein the Apex Court with reference to quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has categorically held that:

"Inherent power of High Court, circumstances in which power can be exercised, power should be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of process of Court but it should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. The High Court should not assume the role of a trial Court and embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of the evidence and sustainability of the accusation on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence. Power should be exercised sparingly, in a rarest of rare case with caution and circumspection." 6. In another judgment reported in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, , the Apex Court at paragraph 27.13 has held that:

"Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility, reliability and acceptability of the materials on record. But it is only opinion formed prima facie." 7. Therefore, on applying the above said principles to the facts of this case and on reading of complaint averments, I find there are certain allegations if broadly accepted attract certain penal provisions invoked. But I cannot say which of the provisions under which charges can be framed by the Trial Court.

While exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot step into the shoes of the Trial Court and direct the Trial Court to frame charge particularly, under certain provisions and discharge the accused for some of the provisions. It is purely the domain of the Trial Court to evaluate the entire charge sheet contents meticulously and find out the allegations made against the petitioners to frame appropriate charges. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons to quash the entire proceedings as sought for. However, petitioners are at liberty to approach the Trial Court before framing of charges to argue the matter and seek for their discharge. In that eventuality, the Trial Court should provide opportunities to both the parties and pass appropriate and suitable orders.

With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.