Partly allowed

Rajshekar Reddy Gillela (A.1) v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Mar 2022CRLP/1921/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash matrimonial proceedings arising from Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court refused to quash, directing the police to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines while the petitioner cooperates with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition not quashed; petitioner directed to cooperate with investigation under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.; provided address and E-mail ID to IO.

Rajshekar Reddy Gillela (A.1) Vs The State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:1921 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mr. Rajshekar Reddy Gillela (A.1 ), S/o. Late. Gillela Ramachandra Reddy, Aged 36 years. Occ. Private Service, Hindu, Aged 36 years, Occ. Private Service, Presently Residing at Carydale East Apartment 2727 , Duke Skeet, Apt#1208, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, USA. Rep. by his GPA Holder. Mrs. Shirisha Shyam Kumar, W/o. Shyam Kumar, Aged about 31 Years, Occ. House-wife, R/o. H. No.1-5-364/6, Plot No. 58, surya Nasar colony, old Alwar, Medchal - Markajsiri ,i]!Etl;i""8fl.,11%usED

¶8

No.1

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶11

.......Respondent No.1

¶12

Koripelli Parameshwar Reddy, S/o K. Bhuma Reddy, Aged 57 years, Occ. Govt. r eac h e r, R/o H N o 1' 1 2' venflaJJSX 31',it ti Hil 5E? f3$3 33i,1 ; ilf,i l"i,

¶13

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 the^proceedings in F.l.R No 5 o't 2022 Dl A5101/2022 on the fiie oI Nlrmal (T) Police Station, Nirmal District.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumslances stated in the N.4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition.the Hiqh Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner/A1 in FIR No.5 of 2022 daled 0510112022 on the file of Nirmal (T) Police Station, Nirmal District.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the i,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KOLIPAKA LAKSHN,IAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appeared either in person or by Advocate.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1921 of 2022

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in Crime No.5 of 2022 ol Nirmal Town Police Station, Nirmal District, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 294-8 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the said Crime.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Pr,rblic Prosecutor. Perused the Record. With their consent this Criminal Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage.

¶23

As per the complaint dated O5-OI-2O22 marriage of the petitioner u,ith 2"d respondent \'as performed on 31-12-2O2O. Thereafter the petitioner herein left USA on O9-Ol-2021 . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2n(r respondent joined him in U.S.A.

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that t1-re 2"d respondent has leveled several allegations against the petitioner herein including the incident in USA. The daughter of the 2n,1 respondent has not made an-v complaint to the Police in USA. It is abuse of process of law. The daughter of 2"d respondent is staying with a boyfriend in USA and she is not interested in^joining the company of the petitioner herein. However, the^petitioner herein has filed an application seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of crue1ty.. Referring to the whasup chat learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2"d. respondent is trying to extract money from the petitioner herein and in the said process she has lodged the present complaint. Thus, there are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The said factual aspects cannot be considered in an application field under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioners is below 7 years.

¶26

¶27

5 In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v State of Maharashtral, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising po\rers by High Courts under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. u,hich are as under:

¶28

iu) The pouter of quashing should be exercised spainglg tuith circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused utith the nonn tuhich has been formulated^{tn the context of the death penaltg,as} eyplained preuiously bg this Court);

¶29

u) While examining an FIR/ complaint, quashing of ulhich ts sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otheruuise of the allegations mode in the FIR/ complaint;

¶30

ui) Ciminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

¶31

uii) Quashing of a complaint/ FIR should be an exception and a raitg thon an ordinary rule;

¶32

r. a t 2olt st igts

¶33

¶34

uiii) Ordinailg, the courts ore banred from usurping the juisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operote in tu)o specific spheres of actiuittes. The inherent pou.)er of the court is, houteuer, recognised to secure the ends of^justice or preuent the aboue of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶35

Lx) The functions of the^judiciary and the police are compLer nent ary, not ouerl appi ng :

¶36

x) Saue in exceptional cases tahere non-interference u.tould result in mtscarrtage of^justice, the Court and the^judicial process should not interfere at the stage of inuestigation of offences;

¶37

xi) Extraordinary and inherent pouers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary^jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its uhims or capice;

¶38

xii) The fi"rst information report is not an encgclopedia u.thich must disclose oll facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the inuestigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the meits of the allegations in the FIR. Potice must be permitted to complete the inuestigation. lt u.tould be premature to pronounce the cortclusion based on hazg facts that the complaint/ FIR does not deserue to be inuestigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of lau. Duing or

¶39

¶40

¶41

after inuestigation, if the inuestigating off.cer f.nds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainont, the inuestigating offi.cer may file an appropiate report/ summary before the learned Magistrate uthich may be considered bg the leamed Mogistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

¶42

xiii) The poLuer under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is uery wide, but conferment of uLide power requires the court to be cautious. If casts an onerolts and rnore diltgent duty on the court;

¶43

xiu) Houeuer, at the same time, the courl, tf it fhinlis fit,^{regard being had to the parametersof quashing} and the self-restraint imposed by laut, more particularly the paratneters laid' doun bg this Court t the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (1ufra, has the juisdiction to quash the FIR/ complaint; and

¶44

xu) When a prager for quashing tle FIR is made bg the alleged accused, the court uthen it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., onlg has to consider uhether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on meits uhether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to pennit the [nuestigating agency/ police^to inuestigate the allegations in the FIR."

¶45

¶46

In view of the said principles laid down by Hon ble Apex Court and in view of the above said discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein in Crime No.05 of 2022 of Nirmal Town Police Station, Nirmal District. However, there are matrimonial disputes between petitioner and daughter of 2nd respondent and the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioner herein is below 7 years.

¶47

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, rr,,ould submi( that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of two witnesses and both of them have specificallv stated about the harassment of petitioner.

¶48

B. Considering the said facts, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the Investigating Officer in Crime No.5 of 2022 of Nirmal Town Police Station, Nirmal District District, to strictly follor.r, the procedure prescribed in

¶49

Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines issued b1, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar2. The petitioner shall cooperate rvith the lnvestigating Officer by furnishing inlormation and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation. The petitioner shall also furnish his latest address and E-mai1 I.D. to the Investigating Officer.

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shal1 stand closed.

¶51

'T eo14)^{B scc 273}

¶52

Sd/-I.NAGA^LAKSHI\4I ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR . tffRUECoPY// (fi sECTlbN oFFlcER

¶53

To 1 The Station^{House Officer,NirmalTownPoliceStation' Nirmal District} 2 On-" -CC io Srl xotipaka Lakshman, Advocate (OPUC) 3 ;;; d6;i" Pr6l;-Croieiutor,^{HiinCourt tor ine staieor relansana' Hvderabad} (ouT) 4 Two CD CoPies 5Kj One Spare ,.^CoPY *5

¶54

HIGH COURT

¶55

DATED:04/03/2022

¶56

1 $E STA re:
o 1 0 1,1;iY ?u22 oz
,L
,: /

¶57

ORDER

¶58

CRLP.No.1921^{of 2022}

¶59

(tr )
-.2
">,/,\yZ-r tl'