Held that specific accusations against petitioners exist, making the dispute of fact unsuitable for interference under Section 482 CrPC; proceedings dismissed but petitioners exempted from personal appearance unless essential.
Dismissal of criminal petition and dispensation of personal presence in trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.822 OF 2023
ORDER :-
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’), is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2060 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore. Petitioners herein are arrayed as A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.6 in the said case.
2
proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence, he prays to quash the same.
3
parents of 2nd respondent promised to give Ac.3.00 cents of land as gift to her. After the marriage, she joined her matrimonial home and A.1 to A.5 used to live jointly in the house of her inlaws. Her married life went on smoothly for two months and thereafter A.1 to A.5 started harassing her physically and mentally demanding Ac.3.00 cents of land from her parents. It is further alleged that at the time of marriage, it was given to understand that A.1 was working in Bangalore and getting salary of Rs.8.00 lakhs per annum. After the marriage, A.1 was removed from the job. 2nd respondent was doing her job in Chennai, and on the advice of A.2 and A.3, she resigned her job before her marriage. It is alleged that A.6 and A.7, who arranged the marriage, used to make phone calls to A.1 to A.5 and instigate them to harass 2nd respondent for Ac.3.00 cents of land. At the time of marriage, her parents provided 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her.
4
the said extent of Ac.3.00 cents of land is registered in their favour, marriage would be performed, and on that, parents of 2nd respondent, at one stage, decided to stop the marriage. At that time, all the elders interfered and the accused are alleged to have stated that they would not insist for registration of the land, and by saying so, the marriage was performed. But, after the marriage, the accused started harassment, both physically and mentally, demanding to get the said extent of land and also some additional dowry. A.1 used to check phone of 2nd respondent, suspecting her character. All the accused together harassed her to get the said land registered in favour of A.1. Further, gold belonging to 2nd respondent was being used by inlaws. Thereafter, the accused forced 2nd respondent to write about 12 promissory notes for an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh each in favour of A.3, obtained signatures of her father, and kept the same with them. Her father signed the same only with a view that her conjugal life would be better.
5
registered in the name of A.1; they got promissory notes forcibly written by her and made her father to sign on the same. Since specific accusations have been made against all the accused attracting the offences alleged, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings, in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The accusations made are all disputed questions of fact, and truth or otherwise of the same, has to be decided only during the course of trial. This Court would not conduct a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact in the present proceedings. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
09.08.2023 DRK
6
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.822 OF 2023
09.08.2023
DRK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 CrPC should be invoked to quash proceedings against petitioners where specific accusations exist but dispute facts of overt acts.
Whether the presence of petitioners in trial court proceedings can be dispensed with given the nature of allegations and evidence.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.6
2nd Respondent
State
K. Sreenivasa Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
