Shaheda Kauser v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1689 OF 2016 ORDER:

1 This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No.2 in Cr.No.662 of 2015 on the file of Station House Officer, Kushaiguda Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3 The petitioner is accused No.2 and the second respondent is the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.662 of 2015. The marriage of the second respondent was performed with the accused No.1 in the case on 26.11.2014 at Hyderabad as per Muslim rites and caste custom. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the parents of the second respondent gave an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh of cash and 10 tulas of gold to the accused No.1 at the time of marriage towards dowry. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the accused No.1 subjected the second respondent to cruelty for additional dowry.

4 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence, much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offences or not will come to light during the course of investigation only. While disposing of the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness or

otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The very purpose of investigation is to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The allegations made in the complaint are prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter.

5 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and also the principle laid down in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab[1], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[2], V.Y.Jose v State of Gurajat[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 proceedings at this stage.

6 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Station House Officer, Kushaiguda Police Station may be directed not to arrest the petitioner / A.2 pending investigation in the crime. 7 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Station House Officer, Kushaiguda Police Station is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioner who is accused No.2 in Cr.No.662 of 2015 till completion of investigation. 8 Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 11th February, 2016 Kvsn [1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604

[3] (2009) 3 SCC 78 [4] 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)