The bench dismissed the Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of dowry fraud FIR proceedings, holding that investigation evidence did not show baseless allegations.
The criminal petition for quashing the proceedings is dismissed.
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 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.6418 of 2011
6 th February, 2012
Between :-
Patchigolla Stanish Babu and others .. Petitioners And The State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Through Vissannapet P.s., Kurnool District and another . Respondents
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.6418 of 2011
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.905 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, Krishna District, to quash the proceeding therein.
The 2nd respondent is the de-facto complainant in C.C.No.905 of 2010. The said C.C. arises out of Crime No.117 of 2010 of Vissannapeta P.S., registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A report came to be presented by the 2nd respondent before the Station House Officer, Vissannapet P.S., on 9-12-2010 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner herein married her on 21-7-2010 and after she joined in the matrimonial home, she has been harassed
by the petitioners herein on the ground of additional dowry. It is also stated in the report to the petitioners herein threatened her with dire consequences on the ground that she did not being the dowry as demanded by them. Basing on the report, the Station House Officer, Vissannapet P.S., registered a case in Crime No.117 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation, the police examined the de-facto complainant, her mother and five other witnesses. After completing the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vissannapet P.S., filed a charge-sheet before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as C.C.No.905 of 2010. Hence, this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.905 of 2010 seeking the prayer stated supra.
Notice to the 2nd respondent-de-facto complainant came to be ordered on 2-8-2011. The petitioners took out personal notice to the de-facto complainant (R.2) and filed proof of service. Respondent No.2 neither appeared in person nor through a Counsel.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner never married the de-facto complainant (R.2) and no marital relationship exists between them. A further submission has been made that as on 21-7-2010 the petitioner had surviving wife and therefore the question of petitioner marrying the 2nd respondent does not arise and that the petitioners 2 to 7 are no way concerned with the marital life of the de-facto complainant (R.2) with the 1st petitioner, and, therefore continuance of the proceedings in C.C.No.905 of 2010 against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of Court.
I have gone through the charge-sheet in Crime No.117 of 2010. During the course of investigation, police have examined the mother of the de-facto complainant and five other witnesses. The witnesses examined during the course of investigation supported the version spoken out by the de-facto complainant in her report. More particularly, L.W.5 – Gaddala Sita Ramulu, L.W.6 – Edara Pullayya, L.W.7 – Mekala Bhaskara Rao speak of the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the de-facto complainant (R.2). Such is the material gathered during the course of investigation, it cannot be said that the accusations levelled against the petitioners are baseless. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J
6th February, 2012 smr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.
Whether the accumulated forensics prove that marriage and family complaints against the accused are baseless.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Patchigolla Stanish Babu
State of A.P.
B.Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
