The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings for alleged cheating and bigamy. The court held that the complaint discloses ingredients of the offence and any question of dishonest intent is a fact to be decided at trial.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY .THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 220 OF 2019
Between;
256, in Kadiri Urban PS, “ Town. R/o. D.N0.1-1-135-63-A, Adapala Street, Kadiri
^ D NoTTi'm^'? "ife. R'O U.N0.1-1135-63-A, Adapala Street, Kadiri Town, Ananthapuram District.
^ D A 24 years, Occ: Unemployed, U.N0.1 1135-63-A, Adapala Street, Kadiri Town, Ananthapuram District
...Respondents/Complainants
stated Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances n eislTtn n“ T ,L n®"' Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Proceedings in C.C. No.454/2018 on the file of the Hon^le Sesh^^'^*'^^® Ananthapuram District, Andhra
I.A. NO; 2 OF 2Q1Q
stated mlheMemor ''82 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances n f . M Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of an further proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos 1 o 3 in C.C N0.454/2OI8/SS 420. 493 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District pending disposal of the Criminal Petiiton.
4t
I.A. NO: 3 OF 2019
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant extension of interim orders made in lA No. 2 of 2019 in CrI P No 220 of 2019 dated 08.02.2019.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y Balaji, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.220 OF 2019
ORDER:
This matter was listed before this Court on 29.01.2024,on that day learned counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment. At request, the matter was adjourned to today i.e.,05.02.2024. Even today also learned counsel for the petitioners requested adjournment. But, this Court declined to grant adjournmentand inclined to proceed with the matter.
- Brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:
(a) The 2nd respondent’s/defacto complainant’s husband was died on 2010 and long back her husband given handloanto
one person belongs to Bramhanapalli Thanda village of
2
Puttaparthy Mandal but the same was not repaid by that person. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent went Puttaparthy rural Police Station for lodging a complaint to that effect, at that time Venkatesh/Accused No.l who is working as a police constable mi:_ that police station promised her that he will solve her financial matter and took her phone number and he made phonecalls to her.
(b) Taking advantage of the death of the 2nd respondent’s husband, accused No. 1 stated that his wife also died due to illhealth and made believe her that if she marries him, he will act as a father to her children. Later they got married, After sometime she came to know that Venkatesh’s wife was not died. He married her while the first marriage is in subsisting. Hence, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint.
(i) That there is a delay in lodging the complaint before the police.
(ii) The charge sheet does not disclose the particulars of place and time.
3
(iii) For attracting Section 420 of I.P.C, there is no dishonest indueement or delivery of property. From the inception there is no allegation of criminal intimidation to attract Section 506 of I.P.C., hence he urges that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners is clear abuse of process of law.
“We have already pointed out various principles and circumstanees under whieh the High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. The seope of exercise of power under Section 482 and the categories of eases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offenees to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in detail in Bhajan Lai’s case. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 are very wide and at the same time the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound prineiples. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It
(2011) 12 see 437
4
would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arriving at conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. In a proceeding instituted on a complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only m a case in which complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. There is no need to analyse each and every aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. The statement of witnesses made on oath to be verified in full and materials put forth in the charge sheet ought to be taken note of as a whole before arriving any conclusion. It is the material concluded during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused persons."
- In the present case the petitioners/accused in order to cheat the 2nd respondent, made believed the 2nd respondentthat the petitioner s/aecused No.l wife was died and got married the 2nd respondent, when the first marriage is in subsisting. Hence, it eventually alludes that there is a dishonest intention, fraudulent intention and mensrea in the minds of the petitioners / accused.
5
the allegations categorically show the dishonest intention, fraudulent intention and mensrea of the accused to cheat the 2nd respondent.
- The police laid the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 493 and 506 r/w 34 of l.P.C. Whether any prior consent of minds is there or not? is a question of fact, which has to be decided during the course of trial.
- Therefore, this Court found no reasons to allow the criminal petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed against all the accused.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinginthis Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
^^ECTION OFFICER
- Three CD Copies vna
' N
HIGH COURT
DATED;05/02/2024
■’.iV
ORDER
CRLP.No.220 of 2019
DISMISSING THE CRLP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint discloses an offence attracting Sections 420, 493, and 506 IPC warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether there is sufficient allegation of dishonest intention, fraudulent intention, and mens rea for conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Padala Venkata Rama Reddy V. Kowuri Satyanarayana ReddyExplained¶40
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sake Venkatesh
Chagaleti Lakshmi Devi
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
