Devarapalli Anandababu, v. Devarapalli Pavani,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2909 OF 2017 ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') requesting to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.677 of 2016 on the file of V-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2.

The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 6 and they alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 & 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.

Amongst the petitioners 1 to 6, petitioner No.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant; petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the parents-in-law and petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law and petitioner No.5 is the husband of petitioner No.4 and petitioner No.6 is the Maternal aunt.

4.

Heard Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complaint allegations are mainly directed against accused Nos.1 to 3 and not against accused Nos.4 to 6, and so far as accused Nos.4 to 6 are concerned, vague allegations have been levelled roping in them

and falsely implicated them. His submission is that the petitioners never harassed the de facto complainant and never demanded for bringing additional amount and the allegations are false. 6.

His submission is also to the effect that the petitioners 1 to 3 along with the de facto complainant resided together at Tenali, whereas the petitioners 4 and 5 are residing at Guntur proper and petitioner No.6 is residing at Chavallamudi and the de facto complainant falsely implicated them also.

7.

The learned counsel has also drawn attention to the allegations in the complaint and the statements made to the police by the witnesses i.e., parents of the de facto complainant and others and would contend that no concrete allegations have been finding place against the petitioners 4 to 6.

8.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh would submit that harassment by the petitioners herein can be substantiated by conducting full-fledged trial and there are prima facie allegations in the charge sheet and the material placed along with charge-sheet by the investigating officer as to complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid Calendar Case.

9.

Now, turning to the material on record, in the first portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements made by the de facto complainant she

stated that she joined her husband and stayed in the house of parentsin-law at Tenali till 12.7.2016 and she was subjected to harassment by the petitioners 1 to 3 commenting that the 1st petitioner is working as Lecturer in Avanti College and earning Rs.50,000/- per month and if he married elsewhere they would have get Rs.10,00,000/- towards dowry and marrying her they sustained loss and thus subjected her to mental agony. Thereafter, she mentions that they did not allow her to go to parents house and threatened her that in case she visits her parents house to sell the house and get Rs.20,00,000/- to lead marital life. While so, on 12.7.2016 her husband brought her to parents house and left there and, thereafter, did not turn up to take her back to his society.

10.

Next incident, as per her statement is, thereafter, all the petitioners came to her parents house and threatened her demanding additional amount and also asked her to sign on divorce papers and when she refused to sign they abused her and beat hear with hands and kicked her mother when intervened.

11.

Learned counsel would submit that such vague allegations cannot be given any weight and have to be scored out as it is clear from the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. that the petitioners are deliberately roped in to harass them. Of course, his strong argument is that no attempt at all is made for additional amount and the de facto complainant was never harassed or ill-treated.

12.

Lastly, he submits that the second incident alleged by the de facto complainant is inherently improbable as it is in-conceivable that the petitioners would visit her parents house and demand her to give additional amount and to sign on divorce papers and on her refusal attacking her at her parental house.

13.

Though, there has been resistance on behalf of the State, but one thing is clear that the first portion of the statement made by the de facto complainant would relate to the petitioners 1 to 3. There is no whisper at all as to the presence or participation of the petitioners 4 to 6.

14.

Only, the second portion relating to the alleged second incident, the de facto complainant alleged that the petitioners 4 to 6 joined petitioners 1 to 3 and complained against them. When the petitioners 4 to 6 are residing elsewhere, as per the admitted case of the de facto complainant, more particularly, the petitioners 4 & 5, who are the husband and wife leading their life at Guntur, but not at Tenali, and petitioner No.6 is only a relative being Maternal aunt residing separately, it is difficult to view that they would join the petitioners 1 to 3 in harassing the de facto complainant and the allegations levelled against them appear to be wholly improbable, more particularly, when no whisper at all is made in the complaint relating to the first incident as mentioned in the petition.

15.

There is no need to refer to any authorities on this aspect of the case.

16.

Hence, the proceedings in C.C. No. 677 of 2016 on the file of V-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur are liable to be quashed so far as the petitioners 4 to 6 are concerned. However, there are prima facie allegations so far as the petitioners 1 to 3 are concerned. Therefore, while dismissing the criminal petition against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3, the proceedings in C.C. No.677 of 2016 on the file of V-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur are quashed so far as the petitioners 4 to 6 i.e., Devarapalli @ Thalatoti Swarnalatha (A-4), Thalatoti Syamson @ Syam (A-5) and Gottipati Sampurnamma (A-6).

17.

Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J Date:05.06.2017.

gbs