Sangabathula Balusula Rao vs Jujjavarapu Subbayamma and Others

This petition is filed u/s 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No. 75 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem.

The facts in giving rise to the filing of this petition are, briefly, as follows :-

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem, Police Station filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and five other for an offence u/s 498-A r/w 34, IPC in Crime No. 118 of 1996 alleging that A-1 is the husband and A-2 and A-3 are the sons and A-4 and A-5 are the wives of A-2 and A-3 and daughters-in-law of the de facto complainant, Jajjavarapu Subbayamma and A-6 is their henchman. A-1 and the de facto complainant, is also having daughter and all the children were married and living separately. She has got landed properties besides gold ornaments from her parents at the time of her marriage about forty years back and she developed the said properties. It is further alleged that A-1 colluded with her sons and daughters-in-law, A-1 to A-5, and at the instigation of A-6, the petitioner herein, started harassing the de facto complainant to handover the lands in their favour and subjected her to both physical and mental harassment and the matter was referred to the elders and they chastised A-1 and in spite of it, they continued the attitude and they also tried to secure her signatures on stamp papers and she resisted the same and also took away mental sutram, black beeds gold chain, ear studs, pearl gold chain from her forcibly and necked out from the house. They are trying to take away the properties of the de facto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences and not allowing the lessee to cultivate the land and A-6, S. Balusula Rao, is aiding and abetting and encouraging them for their illegal acts and hence, they are liable for punishment.

The learned Magistrate took the case on file and issued summons to the accused persons.

The petitioner who is A-6, filed this petition to quash the proceedings.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the petitioner is not related to the de facto complanant and it is alleged that he is the henchman of A-1 to A-5 and aided and abetted A-1 and A-5 in committing the offence u/s 498-A of IPC. The offence u/s 498-A, IPC relates only to the husband or relatives of the husband, but not outsiders and hence, the proceedings against the petitioner are not maintainable and requested to quash the same and he relied on a decision Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, . He further submitted that every harassment is not an harassment contemplated u/s 498-A of IPC and the coercion or harassment was with a view to force the wife to commit suicide or to fulfil illegal demands.

But the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is behind A-1 to A-5 and instigating and abetting them to harass the de facto complainant and actually occupied the land of the de facto complainant claiming to be tenant. He further submitted that apart from the harassment, it is also alleged that the accused tried to secure signatures of the de facto complainant on blank stamped papers and apart from Section 498-A. IPC, the accused committed the offences under Sections 383 and 385, IPC and even if the charge-sheet is not filed for the other offences, the Court is perfectly entitled to look into the material on record and frame appropriate charges. It is for the trial Court to decide on considering the material on record and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for.

It is true that it is alleged that the accused persons forced the complainant to sign on some stamp papers and she resisted the same. Though the charge-sheet is not filed for the other offences, but still of the Court on perusal of the material on record finding that there is material on record to frame appropriate charges for other offences also, the Court is perfectly entitled to frame appropriate charges.

The other contention of the petitioner is that he is not related to the husband of the de facto complainant and hence the commission of offence u/s 498-A of IPC r/w 34, IPC does not arise. It is relevant to mention here that in order to invoke Section 109, IPC the prosecution has to prove that there was an abetment and the said abetment must have been for the commission of offence and the offence was committed in consequence of the said abetment and there is no express provision in the Code for punishment of the said abetment. It is clear that Section 109, IPC attracts only if there is no express provision for punishment of the said offence in the Indian Penal Code. It is true that Section 498-A, IPC contemplates the commission of offence by the husband or relatives of the husband of the woman and if it is alleged that the said persons committed the said offence at the instigation of some other person, as there is no other provision in the Indian Penal Code for punishment of such abettors, then Section 109, IPC gets attracted. Abetment to the commission of offence itself is a separate and distinct offence u/s 109, IPC and hence, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The facts leading to the decision in Kisan Seva Sahakari Samithi Limited v. Bachan Singh (sic), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are different to the facts of the instant case. It appears that co-villagers were summoned alleging commission of offence u/s 498-A of IPC and in the said circumstances, it was held by the Allahabad High Court that the offence contemplated u/S. 498-A, IPC is confined to the husband or the relatives of the husband but not others. There, it was not alleged that the offence was committed on account of abetment of the co-villagers and hence, the decision is not applicable to the facts of the case.

Another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare, first referred to above, wherein it is held that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A, IPC. It should be remembered that the petitioner has filed a petition u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings. Whether the alleged harassment or cruelty would attract Section 498-A, IPC or not, as alleged in the charge-sheet are primarily questions of fact. It is settled principle of law that questions of fact cannot be decided in a proceeding u/s 482, Cr. P.C. It is alleged that the accused persons forcibly took away gold ornaments of the complainant at the instigation of the petitioner and also subjected her to harassment and cruelty with a view to knock off her properties and also attempted to obtain signatures on stamp papers and in the face of the said allegations, it cannot be said that there is no material on record to proceed against the petitioner for the offence u/S. 498-A r/w 109, IPC. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations can be decided only after trial of the case. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the material on record, I am inclined to hold that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of quashing the proceedings.

In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.