Syed Farees Ahmed vs Syed Ataullah and another

This petition is filed u/s 482 Cr. PC to quash the proceedings in CC No.326 of 1996 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

The facts in giving rise for filing of the petition are briefly as follows :

Syed Ataullah, the first respondent herein filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Abids Police Station on 15-9-1994 alleging that he is receiving telephone calls threatening that his daughter has been married to 5. Farees Ahmed, the petitioner herein who is said to be friend of his son S. Warisuddin Naveed and used to visit his house and shop to meet his son. It is further stated that he has also taken an amount of Rs.50,000/- by promising to get a Visa of KSA, but he failed to get the Visa and on demanding to repay the said amount he started behaving in an indifferent manner and started threatening that if he insists for payment of money he will sec the end of his life. It is further stated that he developed friendship with his relatives and started defaming his reputation in their family and friends and claiming alleged marriage which is false and baseless and requested to take action against the petitioner herein. The Station House Officer registered a case in Crime No.247/94 u/s 420 and 506 IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation. The police submitted final report on 4-4-1995 stating that the petitioner furnished information that he married Sameena Misbah daughter of complainant on 28-12-1993 in the presence of Assistant Quazi Sri Jamal and also obtained certificate from A.P. State Wakf Board noting the said marriage and the said certificate was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory alongwith admitted signatures and obtained information stating that the signatures of Sameena Misbah appearing on Nikhanama are genuine and belong to her and finally observed that he is referring the case as civil nature. Then the 1st respondent filed protest petition and the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the 1st respondent-complainant and also recorded the statement of Sameena Misbah and took the case on file u/s 496, 509 and 420 IPC against the petitioner herein and issued summons. Now, the petitioner filed this petition to quash the proceedings.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the daughter of the complainant Sameena Misbah filed a complaint before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate and the same was referred to the police and the Golconda police registered a case in Crime No.135 of 1994 on 18-10-1994 under Sections 465, 468, 469, 420 read with 34 and 507 and 120B IPC and after investigation submitted final report stating that there are documents to show the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant and referred the case as Mistake of fact. The said Sameena Mishah filed a protest petition and her sworn statement was completed and the learned Magistrate dismissed the said complaint as there is no sufficient material on record to take the case on file vide his order dated 31-8-1996 and the said order has become final. He further submitted that the petitioner filed OS No.5277/94 on the file of teamed Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking restitution of conjugal rights against Sameena Misbah and the said suit was transferred to the Family Court and after transfer the Family Court numbered it as OS No.154/95 and the said Family Judge dismissed the said suit on 21-12-1995 on a preliminary issue stating that the suit was barred by principles of res judicata in view of the orders passed in WPNo.16400 of 1994 dated 19-10-1994. Aggrieved by the said iudgment and decree the petitioner filed CCCA No.67 of 1996 before this Court and this Court allowed the said appeal setting aside the decree and judgment of the Family Court dated 21-12-1995 and remanded the matter to the Court below to try the other issues on merits and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

The respondent said to have filed a Special Leave application before the Supreme Court against the said judgment of this Court and obtained stay of all further proceedings as per orders dated 28-11-1996. He further submitted that the petitioner filed suit OS No. 154/95 claiming restitution of conjugal rights contending that he married Sameena Misbah and the respondents are denying the said marriage and hence the Court has to decide whether there was marriage between them or not, and, the questions involved in the civil suit and the questions involved in the criminal proceedings are one and the same and hence the proceedings are of civil nature and liable to be quashed. He further submitted that as per the allegations in the complaint also there is no material on record to take cognizance of offence u/s 496 IPC as the respondent is denying the marriage in between the petitioner and Sameena Misbah.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations in the complaint show that the petitioner took Rs.50,000/- from the respondent promising him to get Visa and failed to get Visa and when the respondent demanded for return of the amount the petitioner makes the story of marriage between him and the complainant daughter and filed Writ Petition No.16400/94 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition observing that the alleged marriage appears to be untrue and awarded exemplary costs. Therefore, the questions involved in the criminal case are totally different to the questions involved in OS No. 154 of 1995 on the file of Family Court and further submitted that the learned Magistrate taken into consideration the material on record and took the case on file under Sections 496, 509 and 420 IPC and the petitioner is trying to produce the same false documents to show that as if there is a valid marriage and if at all there is no material on record the petitioner is at liberty to urge all the grounds before the lower Court and the lower Court considering the material on record can pass appropriate orders and there are absolutely no grounds to quash the proceedings.

It is true that it is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner took Rs.50,000/-from the complainant promising to get visa of KSA and failed to get the visa and when asked to return the amount he threatened to end his life and thereafter started propagating that he married the daughter of complainant. The complainant as well as his daughter are emphatically denying the said marriage. The proceedings before the Criminal Court is with regard to inducing him to pay Rs.50,000/- to get visa and on failing to get visa when asked to return the amount he is propagating that he married the daughter of the complainant and threatening to end his life. The contention of the petitioner that there is no material on record is not correct. The learned Magistrate after considering his matter as usual has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 496, 509, and 420 IPC. The allegations of inducing the complainant to part with Rs.50,000/- to get visa to KSA and failed to get the visa and when demanded to return the amount, he threatened him to kill and thereafter propagating that he married the daughter of the de facto complainant, prima facie show the commission of the said offences. It is also significant to mention that the Court will hear the arguments of the Prosecutor and the defence Counsel at the time of framing the charges and the defence Counsel can point out if there is no material on record to frame charges and the Court has to consider and if there is no material on record, the Court will drop framing of the charges for the respective offences.

The point involved in the civil suit is with regard to the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and daughter of the de facto complainant, but in this case, the main ingredient is inducing the de facto complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- to get visa and then failed to get the visa and when asked he threatened to kill him. Thus the scope of the criminal proceedings are different to the issue involved in the suit. The Family Court dismissed the said suit OS No.154/1995,, framing issue that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and the said order was set aside by this Court and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court. Even if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP confirming the order of this Court, the trial has to take place and appeal again lies to this Court and it may take some years.

The policy of the criminal law is to bring the accused to justice as expeditiously as possible so that if he is found guilty, he may be punished if not he may be acquitted as early as can be. Their Lordships in a decision M.S. Sheriff Vs. The State of Madras and Others, , observed that the public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust.

Therefore, on considering the submissions of both the Counsel and the entire material on record, I do not find any merit in the petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to urge alt the grounds open to him before the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to consider the said pleas without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

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