Dismissed

Ayyalareddi Venkata Babu , a.R.Venkata Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC28 Dec 2012CRLP/227/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Petition No. 227 of 2011, the Court considered a plea to quash police proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on alleged dowry harassment, lack of jurisdiction, and alleged police negligence. The Court held that Thirupathi had jurisdiction as part of the offence occurred there and dismissed the petition as the statements made out a prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 227 of 2011 dismissed; Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions pending in the said Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

Ayyalareddi Venkata Babu , a.R.Venkata Babu, Vs The… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.227 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.276 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor district.

¶5

2. The allegation in the complaint would go to show that marriage of A1 with the defacto complainant was performed on 1311-2009. At the time of marriage an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was given towards dowry and 40 soverins of Gold jewellery and other articles were also presented. After marriage, A1 to A3 started harassing the complainant to bring additional dowry. Ultimately, all the accused necked out from her matrimonial house with her wearing clothes insisting her to bring the additional dowry. Hence, the present complaint.

¶6

3. Heard.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a false case is foisted against the petitioners, that no part of cause of action arose at Thirupathi; that the Inspector General of Police, Rayalaseema Region conducted an enquiry by stating that no independent witnesses were examined residing at Chennai and therefore, the continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶8

5. Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked or exercised when there is abuse of process of Court

¶9

or to secure the ends of justice or to carry out orders passed under the Code. If the uncontroverted allegations in the F.I.R. do not make out a prima facie case, then only, the question of quashing the complaint arises. When the allegation in the complaint made out a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation. That statutory duty cannot be curtailed or interdicted at the threshold of the investigation.

¶10

6. Section 498-A of IPC reads as follows:

¶11

“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means:- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

¶12

7. From the above provision, it is clear that any unlawful demand made by husband or relative of husband of a woman is a cruelty. The allegations in the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. would go to show that all the petitioners subjected the de-facto complainant to cruelty with regard to get additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents, which is an unlawful demand within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said allegation of demand has taken place at Chennai, therefore, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

¶13

Thirupathi has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

¶14

8. Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

¶15

“Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.”

¶16

Therefore, from the above provision, it is clear that when the offence has taken place at several places each of such place gets jurisdiction; that part of the cause of action arose at Thirupathi because marriage held at Thirupathi and at the time of marriage, on demand made by the petitioners, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/towards dowry was given. Demanding of dowry is a prima facie offence under

¶17

Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Therefore, a part of cause of action arose at Thirupathi and the learned Magistrate has got jurisdiction to try the case.

¶18

9. Coming to the enquiry conducted by the Inspector General of Police, it is observed that no independent witnesses were examined; that the Investigating Officer grossly neglected the investigation procedure; that charge sheet is filed without securing proper evidence and that no witness from Chennai was examined.

¶19

10. As seen from the material on record, it can be said that the enquiry report has nothing to do with the case because the Investigating Officer examined six witnesses to corroborate the evidence of the de-facto complainant. So, at this stage, if the statements of LWs.1 to 7 are taken as true and correct, they made out a prima facie case and hence, question of quashing proceedings does not arise.

¶20

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the presence of the petitioners may be dispensed with before the trial court. For this purpose, the petitioners have to file an application before the trial court and on such filing, the trial court shall consider the same, in accordance with law.

¶21

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶22

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

¶23

_______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶24

December 28, 2012 PN

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.227 of 2011

¶27

December 28, 2012

¶28

Ayyalareddi Venkata Babu , a.R.Venkata Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyalareddi Venkata Babu , a.R.Venkata Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Sudhakar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Kashifuddin Kamran, Vs Smt. Shaika Maryam Hasan Amoodi

Smt. Tamindi (Thama Reddy) Madhavi Vs The State of Ap., Rep.by its

B.Tulasidas Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

Valavala Sri Rama Murthy Vs Gannabathula Lakshmana Rao

C.Venkateswarlu Prakasam Dt. and 2 Othrs. Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp. and Anr.