AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.4 in C.C.No.548 of 2022, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Brief facts of the case are that on 02.07.2022 respondent No.2/complainant lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, Bhongir, Yadadri-Bhongir District, against Bandi Bala Narasimha/accused No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2, bandi Mallamma/accused No.2 (mother-in-law), Bandi Yadaiah/accused No.3 (father-in-law) and Bandi Sathyanarayana/accused No.4(brother-in-law). It is stated that the marriage between respondent No.2/complainant and accused No.1 was performed in the year 1999. At the time of her marriage, her in-laws demanded Rs.5,00,000/- dowry. As accused No.1 is addicted to alcohol, harassing her mentally and physically, her parents gave only Rs.2,50,000/- cash as dowry and her in-laws were agreed to it. After the marriage, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law asked additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and beat her, kicked her out of the house, and threatened to kill her. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. After completion of investigation, the Police concerned filed a charge sheet, which is numbered as C.C.No.548 of 2022 and the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.
Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.4 and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice was served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/accused No.4 is residing separately and there are no specific allegations against the petitioner, except stating that he supported his parents and his brother with bald allegations. Therefore, petitioner/accused No.4 was falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that already charge sheet is filed and matter is at the stage of trial and it cannot be quashed against this petitioner/accused No.4, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it is to be noted that the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed way back in the year 1999 and after 23 years of marriage she filed the complaint against accused Nos.1 to 4 stating that at the time of marriage they demanded dowry for Rs.5,00,000/- but her parents gave only Rs.2,50,000/- as they agreed to it and now, the accused No.1 is demanding additional dowry, and accused Nos.2 to 4 are supporting accused No.1.
7 The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is residing separately and he is no way concerned with the matrimonial disputes that prevail between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he supported his brother/accused No.1 and his parents and in this way, he was implicated in this case.
At this stage, it is pertinent to note the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal 1992 supp (1) SCC 335, whereunder the following categories were illustrated, wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The said categories are extracted as under:
“1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.
Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In view thereof, it can be said that category Nos.1 and 3 as extracted above are relevant to the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose will be served and there are no other specific allegations against the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.548 of 2022, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.