This criminal petition sought the quashment of an FIR lodged by the wife against her in-laws regarding property disputes and alleged harassment. The court found no prima facie case due to vague allegations and the husband's failure to prosecute, granting petitioners to quash the FIR.
The FIR in Crime No.14 of 2010 against petitioners 1 and 2 is hereby quashed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.514 of 2010
Date: 08-11-2012
Between Dara Subbalakshmi and another and The State, Rep. through P.P., High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
… Petitioners/ Accused and
… Respondent/ Complainant … Respondent/ De facto Complainant
Dara Vijayalakshmi
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.514 of 2010
Order:
The petitioners, who are sisters, seek for quashment of the First Information Report in Crime No.14 of 2010, Khanapur Haveli Police Station, Khammam. The petitioners were granted interim stay of further investigation through orders in Criminal M.P.No.440 of
2010, dated 27-01-2010. However, the Police laid charge-sheet in the case. Consequently, the petitioners moved the Court for contempt of the orders of the Court granting stay. It would appear that the Police tendered apology. Accepting the apology, the Court would appear to have closed the contempt case and set aside the charge-sheet. Consequently, it is only the FIR that is assailed in this criminal petition.
2. The petitioners are the sisters of the husband of the 2nd respondent. They are accused 2 and 3 in the complaint. Accused No.1 is their maternal grandmother. She however is not a party in this case.
3. The marriage of the 2nd respondent was solemnized in 1988. The 1st petitioner-accused No.2 was given in marriage in 1982 while the marriage of the 2nd petitioner-accused No.3 was celebrated in 1989. Sri D.Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that at the time of the marriages of petitioners 1 and 2, certain properties were gifted to them by the husband of the 2nd respondent and that the husband of the 2nd respondent, who wants to grab those properties, has set up the 2nd respondent with the present claim. He pointed out that albeit the complaint was lodged under Section 498-A, IPC, the husband of the
2nd respondent was not arrayed as an accused in the complaint and that the complaint itself would speak volumes about the collusive claim of the husband of the 2nd respondent through the 2nd respondent.
4. Admittedly, the husband of the 2nd respondent is the only son of his parents. The petitioners are his sisters. He does not have any other siblings.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that prima facie case is not made out and that the complaint is lodged merely to coerce the petitioners 1 and 2 to return the plots received by them at the time of
their marriages from the husband of the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the falsity of the complaint is patent from the orders in Criminal M.P.No.63 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam. The petitioners herein filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C in connection with the present case. The learned Sessions Judge enlarged both the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Inter alia, the learned Judge observed in para 4 of the order that the 2nd respondent herein was trying to convert the civil dispute into a criminal litigation. I am afraid that such an observation in an anticipatory bail application can not the guiding factor in determining whether the prima facie case is made out or otherwise. Having regard to the contentions of the petitioners, I may
examine the complaint proper.
5. The primary allegation is that on 04-12-2009, the accused including the petitioners 1 and 2 herein conspired to harass the 2nd respondent. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the averments in para 11 of the complaint are as vague as anything. I agree that such vague allegations cannot compel the Court to go into the investigation of the case.
6. However, other allegations were also made against the petitioners by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioners and accused No.1 induced the husband of the 2nd respondent to register the plots in the name of the petitioners herein, meaning thereby the settlements were hit by coercion and undue influence. Again, criminal activity could not prima facie be spelt out from the allegations of the
2nd respondent in the complaint, in this regard.
7. It is alleged that in 2004, the petitioners and accused No.1 beat the husband of the 2nd respondent leading to bleeding injuries and cut injuries to the husband of the 2nd respondent, which were later sutured. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no prima facie proof for this allegation as the
2nd respondent herself admitted that no complaint was lodged on the conduct of the petitioners in 2004. It would appear that accused No.1 lodged a complaint against the son of the 2nd respondent alleging that he beat accused No.1. It is also alleged by the petitioners that Police closed such a complaint as false. No documentary evidence is available to verify this statement of the 2nd respondent. I am not willing to accept the contention of Sri M.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, that this is an instance of the high-handed conduct of accused No.1 as well as the petitioners in lodging a false complaint against the son of the 2nd respondent.
8. It is finally alleged that the 2nd respondent and her husband suffered mentally and physically on account of the harassment from accused No.1 and the petitioners. There is no description as to what sort of harassment or cruelty, to which the 2nd respondent had been subjected to by the petitioners. Where the marriage of the 2nd respondent was solemnized in 1988, where the 2nd respondent never lodged a complaint, although she claimed that she had been harassed and treated cruelly through and through her married life, the allegations can be considered to be nothing but tall claims without semblance of prima facie proof. I do not wish to comment upon the claim of the petitioners as to the motive for this
petition. Suffice it to notice that prima facie case is not made out from the lengthy complaint.
9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, inter alia, reminded me of the fact that the Police filed chargesheet after due investigation. Where the charge-sheet has become non est in view of the interim orders of the Court, it is not relevant whether the Police found that prima facie case was made out against the petitioners. A fairly close reading of the complaint does not reveal a prima facie case. One of the touchstones for quashment is whether the facts as narrated without contrary evidence would prove the case of the prosecution. I am afraid that there is no evidence and sufficient material to prima facie show that the petitioners are guilty. In that view of the situation,
I consider that it is a fit case where the FIR deserves to be quashed so far as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned.
10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.14 of 2010 on the file of Khanapur Haveli Police Station, Khammam, against the petitioners 1 and 2 is hereby quashed.
___________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J.
08th November, 2012. Ak
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.514 of 2010
08th November, 2012.
(Ak)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged facts in the complaint disclose a prima facie case of harassment under matrimonial laws.
Whether the FIR in a dispute involving property and alleged lack of complaint history deserves quashment.
Dara Subbalakshmi
Dara Vijayalakshmi
State
K.G.SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
