N.Tulsiram, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2248 of 2010 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.227 of 2008 on the file of Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners/accused 3 to 5.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 5 and the second respondent is de facto complainant in Crime No.227 of 2008. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the marriage of the second respondent was performed with A-1 on 28-05-2005 at Bangalore as per Hindu rites and caste customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the second respondent gave cash of Rs.6,00,000/- and gold ornaments to A-1 towards dowry. It is further alleged that the petitioners herein subjected the second respondent to cruelty for additional dowry and threatened her with dire consequences. Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not will come to light during the course of investigation. If this Court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the main case, the same may cause prejudice to one of the parties to the proceedings.
It is needless to say that the court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in order
to quash the criminal proceedings at the initial stage of investigation. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation. If the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence much less the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, then this court can quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of court thereby to secure the ends of justice.
I have carefully perused the material available on record in order to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable thereby to quash the proceedings. The material available on record is, prima facie, sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R. P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab[1], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[2], V. Y. Jose v State of Gujarat[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 criminal proceedings at the threshold.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the petitioners till completion of investigation. On 10-03-2010, this Court, while admitting the criminal petition, granted interim stay of further proceedings and the same
has been in force till date.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the interim stay granted by this Court on 10-032010, the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 in Crime No.227 of 2008 till completion of investigation.
With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_____________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 16-02-2016 Ksn [1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604 [3] (2009) 3 SCC 78 [4] 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)