Sri. Singampalli Sagar Vineeth v. The State Of A.P.,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.13583 of 2015 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 in Crime No.108 of 2015 on the file of the Station House Officer, Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 354 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime No.108 of 2015.

4. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the betrothal function of petitioner No.1 with the daughter of the second respondent was performed on 26.08.2015. The elders of both sides fixed the date of marriage of petitioner No.1 and the daughter of the second respondent on 18.11.2015. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 misbehaved with the daughter of the second respondent. It is also alleged that the petitioners have willfully and intentionally deceived the second respondent and her daughter.

5. 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. 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.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in R.P.Kapoor v. [1] [2], I am of the State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the initial stage of the investigation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the petitioners till completion of the investigation.

8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the Station House Officer, Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam, not to arrest the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 in Crime No.108 of 2015 till completion of the investigation.

9. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

10. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 21.12.2015 Ivd [1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604