Dismissed

K. Sujatha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Jul 2021CRLP/2630/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition and connected IA seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioner for offences under 498-A and 307 IPC. The Court held that unlike petty disputes involving civil character, serious offences with societal impact cannot be quashed merely upon entry of a compromise, citing Laxmi Narayan and Bhajan Lal.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition and I.A. No.3 of 2021 seeking to record compromise and quash proceedings against the petitioner were dismissed.

K. Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2630 OF 2021

¶6

ALONG WITH I.A.NO.3 OF 2021

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

K. Su.jatha, W/o. Chandramouli, aged 32 years, Rt/o. Flat No.20'1 , Vrushabadri Apartment, Gayatri Nagar, Opp.Chandra Gardens, Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO,1 IN IA.NO.3 OF 2021

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, P.S. Madhapur (Guttala) Cyberabad, Hyderabad, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2021

¶13

Smt. Radhakrishna Adapa, Wio. Sai Muralikrishna Adapa, aged about 38 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o. Plot No.22, Megha Hills, Serilingampalli, Cyberabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/PETITION IN IA.NO.3 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No.6 of 2018 on the file of XV Addl. District Judge, R.R. District at Kukatpally for the offences under Sections 498-A, 307 LP.C., Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in so far as Petitioner/Accused-2^is concerned.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶17

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 stay of all further^proceedings in P.R.C.No.6 of 2018 on the^{file of the Hon'ble} XV Additional Dislrict Judge, R.R. District at Kukatpally for the^{offences under} Sections 498-4, 307 l.P.C., Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry^{ProhibitionAct includingthe} arrest of the petitioner/ Accused No.2.

¶18

LA. NO: 3OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the High Court may be pleased} to record the compromise and^{quash the proceedings in P.R C.No,6 of 2018on the} file of Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,^{R.R. Districtat Kukatpallyfor the} offences under section 498-A,^{307 l.P.c. Section 3 & 4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct.}

¶20

F---'::

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Sudhakara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Pole Vishnu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶22

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶23

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CItl\IINAL PEI'ITION No.2630 OF 2021 AI-ONG \ Il'H 1.,. \o.-1 OF 2021

¶25

CONI}ION OII.DER:

¶26

The present Criminal Petition^{is i'rled under Section- 482 of the} Code olCriminal Procedure, 1973,^{to quashthe proceedingsagainst} the petitioner in P.R.C.^{No.6 of 2018 on the file of XV Additional} District Judge, Ranga Reddy^{Districtat Kukatpally.}

¶27

The petitioner herein is accused^{No.2 in the said P.R'C.The} offences alleged against^{her are under Sections - 4984. and 307 of} II)('

¶28

I.A. No.3 of 2021^{is filed by respondent No.2 to record the} cornpromise and compound^{the offences againstaccusedNo'2 and} also quash the proceedings^{againsther in the aforesaid PRC'}

¶29

Heard Mr. Ambati Sudhakara^{Rao, learnedcounsel for the} petitioner and Mr. Pole Vishnu,^{learned counsel for respondentNo'2} and also leamed Assistant^{PublicProsecutorappearing on behalf of} respondent No.1^- State.

¶30

5. CASE OF^P ROSECUTIO,N:

¶31

i) respondent No.2^{and accusedNo.1 - Sai Muralikrishna} Adapa are wife and^{husband,while accusedNo.3 is her mother-in-} law;

¶32

Crl.P. l'o.2630 of202l

¶33

ii) their marriage was held on 24.ct8.2008^{as per I{irldurites and} c Lrsto lt-l s C)ut ol their wedlock. a Irtale child^was born^{on 06.062009.} narned as Asis Krishnar

¶34

iii) at the time of marriage,^parents of^{respondent No.2paid} Rs.10.00 lakhs as dowry and spent approximately^{an amountof} Rs.5.00 lakhs towards marriage expenses;

¶35

iv) after marriage, respondent No.2 and accused No.I^lived together happily for six months;

¶36

v) after six months of theil marriage, accused No.3 came to Hyderabad and started staying with them;

¶37

vi) since then, the attitude of accused No.1 was changed towards respondent No.2 as acqused No.3 started creating^problerrs be[veen thern;

¶38

vii) accused No.3 and her son, accused No. l, used to commellt on personality and colour complex o1'respondent No.2, and even accused No.l used to nagging lor additional dowry;

¶39

viii) accused No.3 used to say that some of her friends oft'ered more dowry up to Rs.25.00 lakhs and she became giant to their life and asked her to give divorce;

¶40

ix) when respondent No.2 brought al1 the said facts to the notice of her husband, accused No.l, he kept quiet^()r else marriage rvould be dissolved;

¶41

¶42

KL,J CrLP. No.2630 of202l

¶43

¶44

x) accused No.3 and her son, accused No. I used to demand her to transfer the land of Ac. 1 .00 in the name of accused No. I ;

¶45

xi) when accused No.l lost his job, he and his mother used to think how to extract money lrom respondent No.2;

¶46

xii) to achieve their illegal demand, accused No. I kept respondent No.2 in a room ancl locked our side for a day;

¶47

xiii) there was illegal affair between accused No.I and the petitioner herein, accused No.2, a neighbourer;

¶48

xiv) as respondent No.2 is objecting their illegal affair, the petitioner herein and accused Nos.l tried to kill her and her son number of times, but their attempts were in vain;

¶49

xv) accused No.3 being mother of accused No.1 did not object for such relationship between the petitioner and accused No. l;

¶50

xvi) on 12.12.2016, accused No.1 called respondent No. I through telephone and shorvn repentance and asked her to come Ravindra Society, Madhapur, I{yderabad, on which, she along with watchman, David, went there. Respondent No.2 saw accused No. I and the petitioner. Both approached her and the petitioner caught hold ol her hands, while accused No.l slapped on her checks and gave fisticuffs on her stomach. Then, opened the motor cycle petrol tank cap and poured some petrol on her with an intention to kill her with fire. However, her watchman resisted their offensive acts and rescued her from the hands of the petitioner and accused No.l; and

¶51

r----I

¶52

Crl P. 'o )63a of 202 I

¶53

-l

¶54

xvii) with the above allegations,^{respondentNo.2lodgcd a} complaint with police against the^petitioner and^{accused Nos.l and 3.}

¶55

On receipt ol the said complaint, the^police ol Madhapur (Guttala Begumpet) Police Station registered a case in Crime No.782 of 2016, dated 13.12.2016 against the petitioner herein and accused Nos.l and 3 for the offences under Sections 498.4 and 307 ofIPC and Sections - 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, i961. and took up for investigation.

¶56

After completion of ihvestigation, the police filed charge shect against the petitioner and accused Nos.l and 3 lbr the afbresaid of'fences and the same was taken on flle vide P.R.C. No.6 ol 2018 bv the learned XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally'.

¶57

While the proceedings are pending in the said P.R.C., accused No.2 filed the present petition to quash the proceedings against her.

¶58

During pendency of the present Criminal Petition, respondent No.2 herein has filed I.A. No.3 of 2021 to record compromise and compound the offences and also quash the proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.2 in the aforesaid PRC.

¶59

10. CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:

¶60

i) Mr. Ambati Sudhakara Rao. learned counsel Ior the petitioner. r,''ould submit that the police filed a chargc sheet in a

¶61

KL,J Crl.P. No,26J0 of202 t

¶62

routine manner without proper investigation. The petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against her. The petitioner did not commit any offence, much less the alleged offences. The petitioner was implicated in the above crime. The contents of the charge sheet as well as the cornplaint lack the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner.

¶63

ii) Leamed counsel lor the petitioner would futther submit that the petitioner has her own lamily, her husband is a Software Engineer, they were blessed with two children and are leading rnarital lif'e happily. The petitioner herein was shocked to hear the allegation of having an illegal affair between her and accused No. l. The said allegation is nothing but false. He would further submit that this Court vide order dated 04.10.2018 in Crl.p. No.10447 of 2018, quashed the proceedings against accused No. I in view of compromise entered between them. He would further submit that at the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the petitioner - accused No.2 and respondent No.? entered into compromise. pursuant to the said conrpromise, respondent No.2 has no objection tbr quashing the proceedings against accused No.2.

¶64

iii) Reltrring to rhe said order, dared 04.10.20 l8 and the corlprornise, the leamed counsel for the petitioner would subntit that when the proceedings were quashed against the prime accused, the proceedings pending against other accused are inconsequential and do not stand for enquiry.

¶65

_-----'-

¶66

¶67

iv) With the aforesaid^{submissions,the leamed counselsought} to quash the^{proceedings againstthe petitioner herein}

¶68

I1. CONTENTIONS^{OFRESPONDENT No.2:}

¶69

i) Mr. Pole Vishnu,^{leamed counsel for respondent No'2would} submit that respondent^{No.2' and accusedNo' 1 entered into} compromise and^{pursuantto the said compromise.the proceedings} against accused No.1^{were quashed by this Court videorderdated} 04.10.2018 in Crl.P.^{No.10447of 2018'}

¶70

ii) Learned counsel^{for respondentNo.2would 1ufther subnrit} that during pendency ol^{the present petition,even accused No 2 and} respondent No.2 entered^{intocompromiseand in view of the said} compromise, respondent^{No.2 herein has no objectionto quashthe} proceedings against accused^{No.2also. Accordingly,respondentNo'2} filed I.A. No.3 of^{2021 alongwithher afhdavitand joint memoto the} effect that there was^{compromise betweenthe partiesand that} respondent No.2^{has no objection for quashingthe proceedingsagainst} accused No.2.

¶71

iii) With the said^{contentions,the learned counseltbr} respondent No.2 sought^{to quash the proceedings againstthe petitioner} - accused No.2.

¶72

I2. CONTENTIONS O F^{I'ROSECUTION:}

¶73

i) Learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutorwouldcontendthat the} police filed the charge sheet^{against the petitioner and otheraccused}

¶74

¶75

Kt...r CrL P. No.2630 o[ 202 ]

¶76

after collecting the evidence, both oral and documentary. There are serious allegations against the petitioner which cannot be considered at this stage. The contentions of the'petitioner that she is innocent of the alleged offences and that she did not commit any offence etc., are all to be decided only after full-fledged trial, but not at this stage. Merely the proceedings have been quashed against accused No.l is no ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner as the petitioner has to prove her innocence ol the alleged off'ences during trial.

¶77

ii) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that rnere quashing the proceedings against accused No.1 is no ground to quash the proceedings against accused No.2 as a matter of right. During pendency ol the present petition, accused No.2 entered into compromise with respondent No.2 and accordingly, respondent N.2 filed I.A. No.3 of 2021 for recording compromise and to compound the oflences against accused No.2, but that cannot be considered at this stage and is no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage.

¶78

iii) With the said subrnissions, the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition.

¶79

IJ. F INDING OT TIIE COI.,ItT:

¶80

i) Keeping in view the rival subrnissions and the nraterial on record, it is no doubt true that the proceedings in PRC No.6 of 20 l8 rvele quashed against accused No.I vide ordel dated 0,1.10.2018 in Crl.P. No. 10447 of 201 8 in view of comprornise entered between

¶81

Crl.P. No.2630 oJ 2021

¶82

¶83

accused No.l and respondent^{No.2herein.Even during pendencyof} the present petition, both the^{petitioner - accused No.2 and respondent} No.2 entered into compromise and^{pursuantto which, respondent} No.2 has no objection for^quashing the^{proceedings against accused} No.2. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has also^{filed I.A. No.3 of 2021} for recording compromise and to compound^{the of'tbnces againstthe} petitioner - accused No.2. Along with the said I.A. No.3 of 202 l. respondent No.2 tlled an atfidavit and^joint memo confirming the said compromise. The said allldavit as well as^joint memo is^placed on record.

¶84

¶85

ii) Referring to the order dated 04.10.2018 in Crl.P. No.10447 of 201 8, under which proceedings against accused No. I were^quashed, and the compromise entered between the petitioner - accused No.2 and respondent No.2, the leamed counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against thti petitioner - accused No.2 herein.

¶86

iii) In view of the above, prima facie, lhere are spec ifi c allegations made against the petitioner herein rvhich are serious in nature. It is neither a matrimonial dispute between the spouses, nor a commercial / civil dispute. On the other hand, the ot'tenccs involved in the present case are the oft'ences rvhich will have impact on the society. Merely' because the parties entered into compromise is no ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.l. In this regard, it is relevant to mention the parameters laid down by

¶87

KL,J Crl. P. No.2630 of 2021

¶88

¶89

the Apex Court in the State of Madhya pradesh v. Laxmi Narayanr which are as under:

¶90

"i) that the power conlerred under Section 4g2 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrirnonial relationship or fhmily disputes and *,hcn thc partics have resolved the cntire disputc anrongst thct.nse lves:

¶91

ii) such porver is not to.be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious olfbnce s ol rnental depravif y or off.ences like murdor. rape. dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶92

iii)xxxx;

¶93

iv)xxxx;

¶94

v) while exercising the power under Section 4g2 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in natuye and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/conrprom ise betwecn the victinr and rhc offender. the tJigh Court is required 1tl considcr thc arltecedcnts of the accuscd: thc concluct ol- thc accuscd. namel1,, irhcther the accuscd rvas absconding and rvhy hc rvas absconding. horv he had managed rvith

¶95

'^{:ot o} 1.s.y^scc ao:

¶96

CrLP. No.2630 of202l

¶97

¶98

the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

¶99

iv) It is relevant to note that the proceedings against accused No.l were quashed on 04.10.20rg, whereas the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayanr was on 05.03.2019. So, by the date ofquashing rhe proceedings against accused No. l. the principle laid down by the Apex court in Laxnri Narar.anr!,as not in vogue and as such this Court has not considered the said principle while quashing the proceedings against accused No. I by recording compromise. ln view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings were quashed against accused No.1 and, therefore, the petitioner herein is also entitled for quashing the proceedings is unsustainable.

¶100

v) The Apex Court has dealt with the scope and ambit of powers of High court under Section - 4g2 0f cr.p.c. in various judgments. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal?, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Couft cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down cerrain

¶101

']. 1r9921^Supp. I SCC 335

¶102

¶103

KL,J

¶104

Crl.P. No.2630 o./ 202I

¶105

¶106

¶107

guidelines/parameters for exercise ol powers under Section _ 4g2 of Cr.P.C., w,hich are as under:

¶108

"( l) Whcre rhe allegations made in the first inlbrmation report or the cornplaint, even if they are taken at their t-ace value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶109

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justif,ing an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) ol the Code except rrnder an order ol a Magistrate within the purvieu' ol Scction 155(2) olthe Code.

¶110

(3) Whcre thc uncontroverted allcgations madc itl the IrtR or cortplaint and the evidence collcctedⁱⁿ support ol thc salre do not^{disclose the} commission of any olfence and^{make out a case} against the accused.

¶111

(4) Where the allegations in^{the FIR do not} constitute a cognizable^{olfencebut constitute only} a non-cognizable^{offence, no investigationis} permitted by a police^{offlcer withoutan orderof a} Magistrate as contemplated^{under Section155(2)} of the Code.

¶112

(5) Where the allegations^{madein the FIRor} con-rplaint^{are so absurd and inherentlyimprobable} on the basis^{ol which no prudent personcan ever} reach a iust^{conclusionthat thereis stllficient} ground fbr^{proceeding againsl the accused'}

¶113

¶114

Crl.P. No.2b3u oJ zul r

¶115

¶116

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions ol the Code or the Act concerned (under u'hich a criminal procccding is institutedl to the institution and continuance ot'thc procecdings andior rvhere there is a specific provision in the Codc or Act concerned. pror,iding cfficacious redress lor the srievance ol the aggrieved party.

¶117

¶118

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is rnanil'esrly attended with mala fide and,/or where the proceeding is malici.ously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.,'

¶119

vi) Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner herein are specific and serious in nature which will have impact on the society. Thus, mere entering into compromise between the petitioner _ accused No.2 and respondent No.2 herein is no ground to quash the proceedings against accused No.2. If at a, the petitioner is innocent of the olfences aileged against her, she has to prove the same onl' during trial but not at this stage. The petitioner failed to rnake out anv ground to quash the proceedings against her. ln view of the same and also considering the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Laxmi Narayanr, this Court is not inclined to record the compromise and compound the offences against accused No.2 in the aforesaid PRC.

¶120

*=-=-_-.-__-.-

¶121

,1^b.-.--

¶122

KL,J CrLP. No.2630 of202l

¶123

¶124

]] CO\CLTISION:

¶125

I.A.No'3of202lisaccordinglydisrnissedandconsequently

¶126

the Crinrinal^{Petition is also dismissed'}

¶127

As a sequel,^{miscellaneouspetitions, if any, pendingin the}

¶128

Criminal^{Petitionshallstand closed'}

¶129

Sd/-B .SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPYI/

¶130

SECTION^OFFICER

¶131

To, ,1 2 H:tY"il'ftfil3L%?'i::ljFifl3;1il'ffi33il"?';lit'il5:lto'fl'ho',o' * u J. "r 4. 5 [# Two CD^{il CoPies:l i ;i.$[xl''Jffi b]1"'id35Ji} 6 One^{SPare CoPY} s^br

HIGH COURT

DATED: 14107t2021

COMMON ORDER

1 'r{ x '14, I4:
r+
oJ
:.) 02 AlJGz0a a
t
*
DEs

¶136

CRLP.No.2630 of 2021 ALONG W|TH t.A.No.3 of 2021

¶137

DISM|SS,NG THE,t-A.No.3 of 2021 AND c o N s Ee u E N rLy c nr nlr r r.rn-i iliii, o *