V.B.Chandrasekharan v. The State Of A.P.,Rep.,Pp

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1060 OF 2016 ORDER:

1 This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.2 to A.4 in Cr.No.443 of 2015 on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3 A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 and the second respondent is the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.443 of 2015. The marriage of the 2nd respondent was performed with the accused No.1 at Arya Samaj, Secunderabad. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein along with the accused No.1 subjected the 2nd respondent to cruelty for additional dowry.

4 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence, much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners.

5 Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not will come to light during the course of investigation only. While disposing of the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The very purpose of investigation is to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the

complaint. The allegations made in the complaint are prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter.

6 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and also the principle laid down in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab[1], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[2], V.Y.Jose v State of Gurajat[3] and Teeja Devi v State of Rajasthan[4], I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.

7 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Station House Officer, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, may be directed not to arrest the petitioners pending investigation in the crime.

8 Taking into consideration the nature of allegations made in the complaint and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Station House Officer, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam District is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioners who are accused Nos.2 to 4 in Cr.No.443 of 2015 on his file, till completion of investigation.

8 Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

____________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 1st February, 2016 Kvsn [1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604

[3] (2009) 3 SCC 78 [4] 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)