Dismissed

Edigi Anandam Goud and 2 Others v. K.Anitha and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

Telangana HC14 Oct 2022CRLP/10563/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings in a dowry/caste-related case. The Court held that prima facie material existed and allegations were not absurd, requiring a trial to determine marriage validity and applicability of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; Special Court directed to proceed with the case against petitioners.

Edigi Anandam Goud and 2 Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,IHE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10563 OF 2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

Edigi Anandam Goud S/o. Bheemaiah (A-1)

¶8

Edigi Harikrishna Goud S/o. Bheemaiah (A-2)

¶9

Edigi Archana W/o. Anandam Goud (A-3)

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

Karka Anitha D/o. Narsimha, aged24 years, Rl/o. H.No.12-2-12211 , Ambedkar Nagar, Moosapet, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and The State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

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 quash all further proceedings in S.C.NO.14 oI 2015 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of S.C. and S.T. Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶16

CRLPMP. NO: 11763 OF 2017

¶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 all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in S.C.No.14 of 2015 on the file of Special Judge for trial of S.C. and S.T. Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJIII\I

¶21

CR IMII{AL PETITION No.10563 ol' 2()]-'l

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Cr: minal Petition is filed under Section^.182 of the Code of Crimi ral Procedure by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 to quash S.C.No. 14 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Judge for Tr al of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases, RarLga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, the cognizance of which was lalcen for the offences undr r Sections 498-A, 417 , 494, 323 ol' the Indian Penal Code, 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act anrl Ser:tions 3 (i)(x) of SCs/S ls (PoA) Act.

¶24

The fac -s in brief as can be seen from recorcl available before the Cor Lrt are as under: a) On 23.)4.20 15 at 6.O0 PM the de-facto complainant lodged a com rlaint before Women Police Station, RangeL Reddy District allegi rg that flrst petitioner - accused No. 1 is working as Police Hez d Constable and he was appointed irr the year 2OO9 and sta rted working at Kukatpally Police Starion. While the first petit oner -accused No. 1 was working as Constable at Women Policr Station, he used to perform beat duties. During that period, the lirst petitioner has met 1.hr: de-facto eoqplainant, took her contact number, developed :ontacts and

)

intimacy. The first petitioner ard de-facto complainant fell in love and their marriage was performed on 14.05.2013 in the presence of LWs 2 to 4 and others. The said marriage was got registered on 10.09.2014 vide registered document No.920 of 2014 in the presence of witnesses.

¶30

b) After marriage, the de-facto complainant and first petitioner lead marital life and de-facto complainant gave birth to a child by name E.Srihari Goud. The marriage of de-facto complainant and first petitioner was not known to the parents and family members of lirst petitioner. Prior to marriage, when tlre parents of tt,e de-facto complainant asked the first petitioner to bring his parents, he refused to bring them stating that his marriage with the de-facto complainant would be inter-caste marriage as th.e de-facto complainant belongs to SC community and thereby convinced the parents of tlne de-facto complainant that he alone would be available for marriage. After some time, the family members of first petitioner were looking for matches to perform the marriage of the lirst petitioner wrth de-facto complainant and thereby subjected the de-facto complainant to cruelty, both physically and mentally by demanding dowry apart from abusing her in filthy language like "mala madiga lanja".

¶31

¶32

¶33

c) The {irs petitioner has left the company of the cle-facto complainant and has stopped responding even to ohone calls. The de-facto c rmplainant came to know that the first petitioner was transferr:d to Mominpet Police Station.^'llte de-facto complainant i Lfter coming to know his address 'r'rnt to the native place ol the first petitioner at Allipur and whe n she asked the inmates cl the house of first petitioner, secon,l petitioneraccused No.2. rvho is brother of l-rrst petitioner, with regard to the whereabo rts of first petitioner, the second pt:tltioner has picked up qu arrel with de-facto complainant ancl her family members and beat them with hands and abused them in {ilthy language by t rking caste name in the presence of LW5. Later, the de-facto c rmplainant came to know that the fir'st petitioner married to thtrd petitioner-accused No.3 and aggrieved by the same, the de-- acto complainant has lodged complairrr.

¶34

d) Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.32 of 2O15 was reg stered for the offence under Sections 49a-A,417, 494, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and SectiorLs 3 (i)(x) of SCs/ STs (P( )A) Act. Subsequently, after ccmpletion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet, the cognizance of which was taken as S.C.No.14 of 2O15 on the lle of learned Special Judg : for Triai of SCs/ STs (POA) Act c er.ses, Ranga

¶35

¶36

Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is fited by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 to quash S.C.No. 14 of 2O15 on the fi1e of learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against them on the following grounds: i) On 30.05.2014 tl:-e de-facto complainant has married one Byagari Ram Kumar @ Ramaiah, who is legally wedded husband of de-facto complainant at Ambedkarnagar, Moosapet, Balanagar. During the wedlock of t}:re de-facto complainant and Ram Kumar, thre de-facto complainant gave birth to a male child on 12.02.2014 at Life Spring Hospital, Kukatpally. In the birth certificate of the child issued by G.H.M.C. Circle XIV, father's name of the child is shown as karka Ramaiah. Subsequently disputes arose betweet de-facto complainant and said Ram Kumar and de-facto complainant has Iiled FCOP No. 1084 of 20 15 on the file of learned II Additional Family Court at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District for grant of divorce on 17.06.2014 showing her husband as Ram Kumar and that she married him on 31.05.2013.

¶37

ii) The marriage of de-facto complainant with Ram Kumar was performed on 31.O5.2013 and whereas according to tbe defacto^{complainanther marriagewith Iirst petitionerwas}

,,1,/

performed on 14.05.2013. The FCOP No. 1084 of Il0 15 {iled by the de-facto cr,mplainant was dismissed for non-pro secution. ii| Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has n,r application as de-facto co nplainant will not fall under the definition of wife. The de-facto r omplainant has also filed DVC No.8 of 20165 on the file of lea: ned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur against the lirst petil ioner and after counter was filed, the de-facto complainant t as withdrawn the same.

¶43

iv) There e re no merits in this complaint and therefore sought for qu, rshment of proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.14 of i 0i5 on the file of learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (Pt)A) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at. L.B.Nagar.

¶44

Though notice was served on the respondent No. I , there is no represen lation on behalf of respondent No.l. Lleard Sri T. Pradyumna I. umar Reddy, learned senior coun sel lbr the petitioners a rd Sri S.Ganesh, learned counserl for the respondent Nc.1 and perused the record.

¶45

4 Now the point for determination is:

¶46

"V'hether the proceedings against thr: petitionr rs-accused Nos. I to 3 in S.C.No.14 of 2015 on the ile of learned Special Judge for Trial of - SCsTSTs (POA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy Distr.ict at

¶47

¶48

¶49

L.B.Nagar, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

¶50

The only ground on which the petitioners are seeking for quashment of proceedings in S.C.No.14 of 2015 on the hle of learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against them is that the de-facto complainant will not come under the definition of wife as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. According to the de-facto complainant, she has married the first petitioner on 14.05.2O13 and got the marriage registered on 10.09.2014 in the office of Sub Registrar concerned and during the wedlock she gave birth to a male child. It is further alleged that the first petitioner has again married third petitioner and started harassing tlae de-facto complainant physically and mentally apart from demalding dowry. The case of the petitioners, on the other hand is that the de-facto complainant is not his legally wedded wife and her marriage was already performed with one Ram Kumar @ Ramaiah, resident of Patancheruvu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, on 30.05.2014 at Ambedkarnagar, Moosapet, Balanagar and through him the defacto^{cornplainantgave birth to a male child.}

¶51

¶52

¶53

ln order to consider an application under St t:rion 482 of the Code of^r lriminai^procedure, the Court is exoected to^go through the contents of charge sheet and come to the conclusion a,r to whether continuation of the proceedings against the pe litioners would amount to abuse of process of law. The first pet.tioner is not denying that his marriage was performed with, de-facto complainant on 14.05.2013. The only ground the pr'titioners have been agitating is that the de-facto complainant w'ill not fall under the definition ol rvife under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as the marriage of the de-facto comp.ainzrnt was already performed with Ram Kumar @^{Ramaiah on 30.05.2013. When allegation of the de-facto} complainant s that her marriage with first pe -^jtioner was performed on 14.O5.2O 13 and according to first petitioner, as per the admir sion of de-facto complainant in divorce petition filed against F am Kumar, the marriage of de-facto :omplainant was performe< L with Ram Kumar on 31.05.2013. Therelbre, as rightly submit ted by learned counsel for the petitirrners, if the contention of .he de-facto complainant in this case and also in the divorce pe tition are taken into consideration, L.er marriage was performec with first petitioner on 14.05.2013 :Lr-rd q,hereas her marriage u,as also performed with Ram Kumar on

¶54

¶55

31.05.2013 i.e., within 16 days of her marriage with the hrst petitioner she has again married with Ram Kumar. Either of the things couid be incorrect or may be both of them may be correct and the de-facto complainant could have married both of them. However, certihcate of registration of marriage of de-facto complainant with first petitioner was done on 10.09.2014. Therefore, if the marriage certilicate is accepted, ignoring the fact that alleged marriage with the first petitioner on 14.05.2013, the marriage of the de-facto complainant with the first petitioner will become invalid on account of marriage of the de-facto complainant with Ram Kumar on 31 .O5.2013.

¶56

7 . Therefore, the crucial aspect is if the marriage of the de/acto^{complainantwas performed with Iirst petitioneron} 14.05.2013, then her marriage as per the marriage certificate dated 10.09.2O14 would become invalid on account of her marriage with Ram Kumar on 31 .05.2013. Whether the marriage of accused No.1 with de-facto complainant is a valid marriage is a question of fact. Unless fuil-fledged trial is conducted, this Court cannot decide as to on which^date the defacto^{complainanthas married petitionerNo. 1 and other} connected questions. On going through the^contents of charge sheet, there is^prima-facie material against^{the petitioners.,}

¶57

¶58

The HorLourable Supreme Court in a celebratecl^judgment

¶59

decided betw€en State of Haryana and^{others vs. Ch. Bhajan} Lal and othersr, has formulated certain^{guidelines r,tnderwhich} Court can cor sider quashment of criminal case. The^guidelines are:

¶60

"(a) w lere the allegations made in the: First lnforma -ion Report or the complaint, even if -hey are taken z t their face value and accepted :tr their entirety do not prima facie constitute any ofietrce or make or Lt a case against the accused;

¶61

(b) w rere the allegations in the First Inforrnatjon Report i nd other materials, if any, accornpanying the F.l.R. d,r not disclose a cognizable offence,^jrrs,ifying an invt stigzrtion by police officers under Sectron 156(1) )f the Code except under an ord,:r of a Magistri Lte r.vithin the purview of Section 155(12) of l.he Code;

¶62

(c) w rere the uncontroverted allegations rnirde rn the FIR or complaint and the evidence collo(lled in support of the same do not disclose thc comrnission of any offence and make out a case again,.;t t he accused

¶63

(d) n . rere the allegations in the FIR rlo not constitu:e a cognizable offence but constitutt: onl5' a non-cog rizable offence, no investigation is p<r'rnitl ed by a pol ce officer without ari order of a Magistrrlte as contem[ lated under Section 1 55(2) of thr: Cod :;

¶64

(e) wl rere the allegations made in the F tR or complai:rt are so absurd and inherentlv imprr.,bable on the )asis of which no prudent per:lon carr e/er reach a just conclusion that there is srrflicient ground 1 cr proceeding against the accuscd;

¶65

'^{t99z atn6oa}

¶66

¶67

(0 where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

¶68

(S) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended wit|, mala f"de andf or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶69

Though, learned counsel lor the petitioners has relied upon Bhajanlal's case (referred supra) contending tJlat the allegations leveled against the petitioners are absurd, as seen from the contents of the complaint, statements of de-facto complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and charge sheet, it is evident that the frrst petitioner having married the de-facto complainant has again married to accused No.3 and he has been harassing her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. So, the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the allegations leveled against the petitioners as absurd cannot sustain.

¶70

Further, though learned senior counsel for the petitioners has taken a plea that the de-facto complainant will not fall underlre delinition of "wife" as defined under Section 498-4 of

¶71

¶72

the Indian Penr Ll Code, it is pertinent to note thal lhe case under challengt is also filed against the petitione:s for the offence under S,:ctions 3 (i)(x) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, trs tht: lirst petitioner allege d to have abused the de-facto comp,lainant in filthy language l,y taking the name of her caste.

¶73

1 1. Thus, th€ petitioners failed to establish the [;rc)unds to quash proceedir -gs against them in S.C.No. 14 of 2015 on the lile of learned Spec al Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act <:ases, Ranga Reddy [,istrict at L.B.Nagar and thereby the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶74

Accordin6ly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Thr: trial Court is dire< ted to proceed with the case arlainst the petitioners in S.C.No. 14 of 2015 on the file of learrLed Special Judge lor Tria[ of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases, Raega Reddy District at L B.Nagar on merits, uninfluencetl by the observations ard comments made by this court in this Order.

¶75

¶76

As a seqr rel, the miscellaneous Petitions. penrhng if any, shall stand clos ed.

¶77

Sd/. T.^JAY ASREE ASSITiTAT.IT^REGI STRAR L //TRUE^COPY/i :$ECTION OFFICER

¶78

¶79

To,

¶80