AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners/accused have filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.483 of 2015 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nalgonda, and to pass any such orders as the Court may deem it fit.
As per the averments of the petition, the petitioner No.1 is resident of Suryapet, Nalgonda. The petitioner No.2 is his wife, petitioners 3 and 4 are his parents; petitioners 5 and 6 are in-laws of petitioner No.1; petitioner No.7 is brother-in-law of petitioner No.1; petitioner No.8 is grandmother of petitioner No.2; petitioner No.9 is sister of petitioner No.3; petitioner No.10 is the husband of petitioner No.9.
Respondent No.1 has filed a complaint before the police on 31.01.2015 alleging that after obtaining divorce from her husband Yerra Vasu, she came into contact with the 1st petitioner in the year 2003 and it is alleged that she get married with the 1st petitioner in the year 2003 and blessed with a child namely Akshaya presently 11 years old; after the marriage they stayed together for sometime; later, 1st petitioner left her company for seven years without informing her; thereafter she started living with her parents; she came to know that in the year 2003 itself, petitioners 3 to 9 have performed marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2; and accordingly she gave complaint to the police wherein the case in Crime No.19 of 2015 for the alleged offences under Section 498A, 494 read with 109 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered; whereas as per the assertion of the complainant itself she got married to one Yerra Vasu in 2003 itself and blessed with a child aged about 14 years, and there is no justification in lodging the complaint. Further, the complaint filed by the complainant/1st respondent Ch.Nagamani is vague.
Prima facie, the provisions of Section 498A, 494 read with 109 IPC and the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act does not apply. She has also filed M.C.No.15 of 2012 and it was dismissed on 12.07.2014 as she did not choose to adduced any evidence to establish relationship with 1st petitioner. She has also filed DVC No.1 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda. When the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, she did not choose to appear on 11.02.2015 before Lok Adalat. Accordingly, requested to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.483 of 2015 against the petitioners herein.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to submit that the petitioners are entitled for the relief of quashing of proceedings mainly on three grounds; (i) there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint before the police; (ii) the maintenance case filed by the defacto complainant-2nd respondent is dismissed for default; (iii) and that in the year 2003 itself the defacto complainant-2nd respondent has married Yerra Vasu, and she gave birth to male child through him; she is abusing the process of law, and lodged a false case against the petitioners and none of the ingredients of offences under Sections 498A and 494 read with Section 109 IPC or the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against the petitioners/accused.
Learned Public Prosecutor seeks to submit that the Police, Vemulapally, after thorough enquiry filed charge sheet and the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Miryalguda, has taken cognizance of offences under Section 498A, 494 read with 109 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners/accused. Prima facie, the offences stated above are made out against the petitioners/accused and it is for the petitioners/accused to face trial. At this stage, this Court cannot quash the proceedings.
On a perusal of the proceedings, it is found that on 11.06.2015, this Court has passed an order to the effect that pending disposal of the criminal petition, trial shall go on but the presence of petitioner Nos.2 to 10/accused 2 to 10 before the trial Court shall not be insisted upon unless the learned Magistrate feels that their presence is necessary.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the State has no objection if, by confirming the said interim order, this criminal petition is disposed of, for which the learned counsel for the petitioners also conceded stating that the trial is in progress before the Court below.
It is no more res integra that with respect to exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab (2020) 3 SCC 317, at paragraph 8, held:
"It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding."
It is clear from the law laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court that whenever a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused, the High Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings. In the present case also, Police after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet, learned Magistrate having considered the material available took cognizance of the offence, admittedly the trial is in progress. Hence in the above backdrop at this stage I do not find any merit in the request of the petitioner to quash the proceedings.
In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court that the presence of petitioners 2 to 10/accused 2 to 10 before the trial Court need not be insisted upon unless their presence is felt necessary, and to dispose of the C.C.No.483 of 2015 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Interlocutory Applications, if any pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.