Bommineni Pradeep Reddy v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4481 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.98 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Venkatapur Police Station, registered under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in order to overcome the latches on the part of the second respondent, she lodged a false complaint against the petitioners. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie do not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter.

3.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners herein are A1 to A6 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant. A perusal of the record reveals that the marriage of the second respondent was performed with the first petitioner on 14.03.2014 at Venkatapuram as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Immediately after the marriage, the second respondent joined the first petitioner to lead marital life. On 16.05.2016 elders on both sides convened a meeting to convince the parties. Thereafter, the

second respondent again joined with the first petitioner. Inspite of the intervention of elders, bad weather prevailed in the family life of the second respondent and the first petitioner. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein subjected the second respondent to cruelty. It is further alleged that the petitioners herein demanded additional dowry from the second respondent.

4.

While exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offence or not will come to light during the course of investigation. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. 5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab1, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, V.Y.Jose v. State of Gurajat 3 and Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan4, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

1 AIR 1960 SC 866 2 AIR 1992 SC 604 3 (2009) 3 SCC 78 4 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar5, the Station House Officer, Venkatapur Police Station, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in Crime No.98 of 2017 so far as the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 6 are concerned.

7.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_____________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date:16.06.2017 Rns 5 2014 (8) SCALE 250