Dismissed

Markonda Kishan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Oct 2022CRLP/2339/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashment of a Section 498A IPC charge sheet. The Court held that prima facie evidence from the charge sheet and witnesses established that the petitioners were present and instigated the accused, thus rejecting the defense of absence and refusing quashment.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of the charge sheet dated 13.10.2019 in C.C. No. 760 of 2019 against the petitioners was denied.

Markonda Kishan Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA " ATHYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2339 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

'1 . Markonda Kishan, S/o. Yellaiah.

¶8

Markonda Laxmi, Wo. M. Kishan.

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶12

Thota Sindhu, Wo- Jeevan Kumar.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

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 charge sheet dated 1310312019 in C.C.No. 760 of 2019 to the extent the petitioners herein are concerned, On the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Parkal, Warangal.

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶16

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 in C.C.No. 760 of 2019 to the extent the Petitioners herein are concerned, On the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Parkal, Warangal district.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.T. DAMODAR, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Mr. M.AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE DR. JI-ISTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶20

CRII\IINAL PETITION No.2339 of 2Ol9

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The petitioners/A4 and A5 in C.C.No.760 of 2019 on the file of V Atlditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal cognizance of r,l,hich was taken against them and other accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC filed this petition seeking quashment of the charge sheet.

¶23

The undisputed facts as per the charge sheet are that the marriage of the de-facto complainant was perforrned with A1 on 25.05.2013. At the time of marriage, the family of the de-facto complainant have given Rs.4 lakhs cash, Rs.6 lakhs worth of gold and other house hold articles to Al to A3. Until one and a half years after the marriage, the accused have taken care of the de-facto complainant properly and subsequently she has given birth to a daughter. Al has started harassing the de-facto complainant physically for fetching additional dowry of Rs.iO lakhs on the ground that she has given birth to a daughter. AL denied to lead the conjugal life with the de-

¶24

\ \

¶25

¶26

facto complainalt and started abusing and beating her. 42 and A3 have a-lso supported A1 and they also demanded Rs.10 lakhs as she has gave birth to a daughter.

¶27

The petitioners/A4 and A5 also used to visit the house of the de-facto complainant frequently and talk to A1 on phone stating that as the de-facto complainant has not given birth to a baby boy, they would perform the marriage of their daughter with A1 so that she will give birth to a male child. On the instigation of the petitioners, A1 used to harass the de-facto complainant and beat her by coming in drunken condition. A panchayat was held before LWs.6 and 7, wherein all the accused, including the petitioners, were present and all of them have agreed to stop the alleged harassment. In spite of that, the harassment was continued, thereby she has filed a complaint before the police.

¶28

Police have registered a case in Crime No.72 of 2O1B for the offence under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and on completion of

¶29

¶30

investigation charge sheet is h1ed, cognizance of which was taken against the petitioners/A4 and A5 for the offence under Section 498A IPC and against Als to ,{3 for the offence under Sections 3 a:rd 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

¶31

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/A4 and A5 have Iiled this petition seeking quashment on the ground that petitioner No.1/A4 was working as Assistant Subinspector of Pc,lice at Dharmrram Police Station and did not get time to look a-fter his duties and his own family affairs and therefore, it is not possible for him to intervene with the day to day lamily affairs of the de-facto complainant and A1. De-facto complainant has Iiled DVC.No.79 of 2018 against her husband and other stating that she has been residing u'ith her husband at Hyderabad as he was working AS I\4alager in Sonalika Tractors, Hyderabad and the pleadings of the said DVC would go to show that her in-Iaws are not living with her. Similarly, the petitioners a-re residing at Dharmaram, thereby the allegation thar the petitioners are interfering with the \ t

¶32

¶33

alfairs of the de-facto complainant and A1 is incorrect. The allegations that the petitioners used to visit their house frequently and instigate A1 to A3 and that they would perform the marriage of their daughter with A 1 are a-lso incorrect.

¶34

Originally the petitioners have {iled this petition seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.72 of 2018 However, during the pendency of this petition investigation was completed and charge sheet is filed, thereby the petitioners got amended the petition seeking quashment of entire charge sheet against them.

¶35

7 . Heard both sides and perused the record, including the statements of witnesses, contents of complaint filed by the de-facto complainant and other materia-l.

¶36

Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet against the petitioners can be^quashed?

¶37

9 . In order to quash the charge sheet, the^petitioners are expected to make out a case that even if the^{contents of}

¶38

{

¶39

¶40

the charge sheet are accepted to be true, there should not

¶41

have been any case against them.

¶42

In Rajiv'fhapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoort,

¶43

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para 3O as under:

¶44

"3O.^{Based on the factors canvassed in the} foregoing paragraphs, rve would delineate the following steps to deternine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:

¶45

30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

¶46

3O.2, Step ttuo: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factua-I assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemrL the factual basis of the accusations as fa-lse?

¶47

3O.3. Step tLwee: w,hether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/ complain ant ; and / or ttre materia_l is such thert it cannot be.justifiably refuted by the prosecution / complainant?

¶48

3O.4. Step four: whetl.rer proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends ofjustice?

r (2013) 3 SCC s30

3O.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."

¶53

In M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh and another2, the

¶54

Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para 9 as under:

¶55

"9.^{Right from the case of R.P. Kapurv.State of} tunjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239] this Court has held that revisional or inherent powers for quashing the proceedings at the initial stage can be exercised only where the allegations made in the complaint or the first information report, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entiretSr, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence or where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence relied in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused, or the allegations are so absurd and inherently improper that on the basis of which no prudent person could have reached a just conclusion that there were sufficient grounds in proceeding against the accused or where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any provisions of the Code or any other statute to the institution and^continuance of the criminal proceedings or where a^criminal proceeding is manifestly actuated with mala^fide

¶56

2 (2OOtl a SCC 645

¶57

¶58

and has been initiatecl maliciously with the ulterior motive for rvrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private ard personal grudge."

¶59

I 1. In the case on hancl, the de-facto complainant^has made an allegation against five persons i.e., her husband, in-laws and the petitioners herein, who are no other than her husband's maternal uncle and his wife. It is being the practice of a-11 the complaina nts in the complaints filed under Section 498A IPC to rope in not only the husband and in-laws, but also thcir rr:latives of her husband and their kit and kin in order to put pressure on the family of her husband . o come for a settlement or to harass ttre entire family. That is the reason why the Courts are supposed to be more vigilzrnt in scrutinizing the allegations ieveled againsl the relatives of the complainant's husband in a complaint filed under Section 4984 IPC.

¶60

In the case on hand, in the complaint and in her 161 Cr.P.C., statement, the de fat:to complainant is specilic to the effect that after she has given birth to a daughter, her husband and in-laws star-ted harassing her physically and

¶61

¶62

mentally, abused and beat her and demanded her to bring Rs.10 lakhs stating that her father has retired from service, thereby he has money. The allegation against the petitioners/A4 and A5 is very specific and clear. It is stated by the de-facto complainant that the petitioners used to visit their house very frequently, used to support her husband and in-laws and instigate her husband over phone stating that the de-facto complainant has not given birth to a male child and they started proposing that they will perform the marriage of A1 with their daughter after taking divorce with the de-facto complainant. That means, according to the de-facto complainant, the petitioners/A4 on and A5 have instigated A1 through phone to keep harass the de-facto complainant and to give divorce to her so that they will perform the marriage of A 1 with their daughter so that she will give birth to a male child.

¶63

This aspect has been repeated by all the witnesses, including father of the de-facto complainant, elders of the de-facto complainant, who were examined as LWs.4 to 6. LWsd.2 and 3 have almost repeated whatever the de-facto

¶64

¶65

¶66

complainant has stated stating that both the^petitioners used to visit the house of the de-facto complainant, instigated her family members and used to advice A1 to give divorce '-o the de-facto complainant so that his marriage can be performed with their daughter.

¶67

L4. Similarly, LWs.4 and 5 also stated what the parents of the de-facto complainant have stated. So far as the IS elders of panchayat, wl'ro was examined as LW.7, concerned, he has stated that when the panchayat was held and when the disputes were at the peak level, all the accused, including the petitioners, have admitted about whatever the allegations leveled against them and assured the elders that they rvill take ca-re of the de-facto complainalt properly. However, they could not change their attitude.

¶68

Considering the discussion made above, it is clear that there is a strong i:rima facie case against the petitioners that they havc been harassing the de-facto complainant arld encouragir-rg the family members of A1.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were residing at Dharmaram on account of employment of petitioner No.1/A4 as Assistant Sub-lnspector of Police and admittedly the de-facto complainant was residing at Hyderabad on account of employment of A,1, thereby there was no chance of the petitioners interfering in the family a-ffairs of A.1 and the de-facto complainant. It is true that the petitioners are residing at Dharmaram, whereas the defacto complainant was living in Hyderabad. In fact, that is the reason why the de-facto complainant has specifica-lly mentioned that the petitioners used to instigate her husband/Al through telephone and also used to visit Hyderabad frequently. It is not impossible for the persons living in Dharmaram to visit Hyderabad frequently.

¶73

17 . The other submission made by the petitioners is that in DVC filed by the de-facto complainant, there is no mention about the petitioners being harassed. It is true that the copy of the DVC does not show the allegations against the petitioners. However, while considering the

¶74

petition unde: Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot conduct a mini tria,l to give a linding that since the de-facto complainant has not mentioned about the alleged harassment by the petition€ rs, her contention and the statements of witnesses agzrinst the petitioners aje In correct. This exercise has to be done by the trial Court during the course of trial during which the trial Court would examine the witnesses ald basing on their demeanor and the evidence of other witnesses will conclude as to r.r,hether the evidence of the witnesses can be believed or :1ot.

¶75

i8. Therefort,:, considering t he circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners. Hence, the case against the petitioners cannot be quashed.

¶76