Kukkala Yelamanda Reddy (A1) v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4332 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 in Crime No.107 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Giddalur Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C., and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent has not explained the reasons for delay in lodging the complaint. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. He also submitted that in order to lodge the complaint at Giddalur Police Station, the second respondent created a story as if the petitioners made a galata on 15.01.2017 at Giddalur. 3.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter; therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.

4.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime No.107 of 2017. The marriage of the second respondent was performed with the first petitioner on 31.07.2009 as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Immediately after the marriage, the second respondent joined the first petitioner to lead

marital life. Out of lawful wedlock, the second respondent and first petitioner were blessed with a daughter. For one reason or other, bad weather prevailed in the family life of the second respondent and first petitioner.

5.

As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners subjected the second respondent to cruelty for additional dowry. It is further alleged that on 15.01.2017 the petitioners went to Giddalur and demanded additional dowry from the parents of the second respondent.

6.

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 offences 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. 7.

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 Gurajat3 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)

8.

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, Giddalur Police Station, Prakasam District, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C. in Crime No.107 of 2017 so far as the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 are concerned.

9.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 10.

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

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 14.06.2017 Ivd 5 (2014) 8 SCC 273