Dismissed

Smt. Chivakula Santa v. State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC5 Sept 2022CRLP/6433/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana refused to quash a criminal case filed under Section 420 IPC against a woman accused of marriage fraud and extortion. The court held that prima-facie material existed and the case required trial, dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking quashment of the case under Section 420 IPC is dismissed.

Smt. Chivakula Santa Vs State of Telangana and Another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

t^3259l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6433 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. R/o. H.No. Chivakula 12-13-7051N8, Santa, Wo S. B. S V. Heights, S. Prakasa Flat NoRao105,Ag^ed Gokul⁴² Nagar, years, Occ. Tarnaka,Nil, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

I Sri. B. V. S. Prakasa Rao, S/o Late B. Rama Sastry, Aged 50 years, Occ. Self Employee, R/o.H.No. 5-6-519, Plot No.893 A SKD Nagar, Near Dilsukhnagar Public School, Vanasthalipuram, R.R. Dist.

¶13

.Respondents/Com^plai nants

¶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 call for the records pertaining to CC No. 101212017, on the file of the XXIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar and^quash the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.

¶15

l.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 CC No. 101212017, on the^{file of} the

¶17

XXIV Additional Metrol^,olitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar and nass such other order or orders as this llon'ble Court may deems fit.

¶18

This Petition cor ring on for hearing, upon perusing tho \4emorandum of Grounds of Crimina Petition and upon hearing tht: arguments of Smt. V. Padma, Adv;cate for the Petitioner and of the ,\ssistant Public Prosecutor on behalf o the Respondent No.'l and of Sri K. Dr:,anath, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶19

The Court made the fc lowing: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6433 of 2Ol9

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner - accused to quash C.C.No. 1012 of 2Ol7 on the file of learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar the cognizance of which was taken for the offence under Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record available before this Court are as hereunder:

¶25

a) On 06.07.2017 at 8.4O PM the respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant has lodged a complaint before Vanasthalipuram Police Station alleging that he got married with petitioneraccused on 27 .11 .2015 and thereafter on 3 1 .O7 -2017 the petitioner-accused along with her parents havb lodged a complaint against himself and his mother before Saroornagar Woman Police Station vide Crime No.23 of 2Ol7 for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by alleging that he was I \

¶26

harassir-rg Lr :r for additional dowry and as a cor:rs,l,luence of which, l-re w,,s remanded to^judicial custody

¶27

b) After :ompletion of three days rema nd, ttrr rr:spondent No.2-de-fact r^,:omplainant was released on bai1. or r rur enquiry, he came to know that the petitioner-accused i.e., h.s; wife was already mar''ierd with one K.Ramanadha Shankir r/o Hubli on 1i.02.2005 rnd thereafter she lodged a case aga nst him under Section 498 A o{ the indian Penal Code. The pet;1i'rne r-accused has demarr 1ed Rs.6 lakhs and 20 thula s ': I l1old from K.Ramanadl La Shankar and then comproraiserl v,'ith him and also obtaine, 1 rlii,orce from him before Hubli Court.

¶28

c) On 1t .03.2011 the parents of the pe tition,rr-ac,rused has performed i nother marriage to her with Venk ala Rambabu, R/o. Chanc a Nagar and one month thereafter :ihe lodged a complaint er lainst Venkata Rambabu and his fztn:rily members vide Crime I o.647 of 2Ol2 for the offence urtder fle:trons 498-A, 406, 506, 5l⁾⁹ of the Indian Penal Code and SectLo:es^,4 and 6 of the Dowry P^-ohibition Act. The petitioner-accuse,l :ompromised with Venka a Rambabu by receiving Rs.9 lakhs; rrnc. obtained divorce with him through Hafeez Court.

¶29

¶30

d) In the year 20 15 the petitioner-accused maintained relationship with one Veerender R/o. Pune and lodged a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.3B6 ol 20 15 under Section 354(C), 42O of the Indian Penal Code and received Rs.80,0O0/- from him but did not compromise and the case is still pending. The petitioner-accused, on the instigation ol her parents, marries innocent persons, cheats them by stating that she is unmarried and after the marriage, they lodge case against the victims and their family members and demand money for compromising the case

¶31

e) Basing on the said compiaint a case in Crime No.492 of 2017 under Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code of was registered by Vanasthalipuram Police Station. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, the investigating agency has filed charge sheet, which was numbered as C.C.No. 10 12 of 2017 on the Iile of learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused has filed the present criminal petition on the following grounds:

¶32

I \

¶33

¶34

i) The p :titioner-accused never supprr:ssed l-Ler previous marriages fr rnr respondent No.2 - de-facto cornplainant, who has married hcr only after knowing about her earJi,:r rnarriages with others. In fact, the respondent No.2-de-facto cornplainant got married o one Veeralakshmi, who is a Centrill Government Employee at RAW, New Delhi in 1991 and he livt:d wi:h her for 15 years ar d gave birth to two children thror.tgh her. The responclent 'lo. 2 - de-facto complainant has er.tracted nearly 36 lakhs fror n Veeralakshmi and gave divorce to trer-.^'lhe Court had given cr. stody of two children to their mother but r,he son of respondent I Io.2 has been in his custody.

¶35

ii) The r< spondent No.2 has suppressed the filct from the petitioner tl al he is having a female child thr ough his hrst marriage. .ater on, he married Shailaja Chit rr,Lp,-r, a State Government Employee working as a Sub Registr:.r arrrJ Group - II Officer at Vijayawada in the year 2012, who^{.^,a.s} zr divorcee having a dar ghter of 12 years through her first marria,le.

¶36

iii) Even^je the paper advertisement, the responcrenr- No.2 has mentioned i hat he is having only a son thrcr.rgh his first marriage ar d suppressed about the daughter, u,ho is in the gi, custody of h :r mother.

¶37

)

¶38

.1,

¶39

iu) Though respondent No.2 has mentioned as divorcee in his paper advertisemenL, he did not specifically disclose his second marriage. Respondent No.2 started harassing the petitioner to bring money from her parents for purchasing a house. As the petitioner could not bear the harassment meted out by her in the hands of respondent No.2, she has lodged a complaint before the Police. As a counter blast to the complaint given by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has resorted to file a complaint, which is subject matter of this criminal petition.

¶40

v) The present case would not come under the purview of Section 42O of the Indian Penal code, as there is no inducement by the petitioner to respondent No.2 to part with money or vaiuables. It is purely a matrimonial dispute and already the Respondent No.2 has hied O.P.No.797 of 2Ol7 before the Family Court, L.B.Nagar seeking divorce.

¶41

Now the point for determination is:

¶42

"Whether the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No. 10 12 of 2Ol7 on the file of learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

¶43

¶44

()

¶45

Heard Smt.Valluru Padma, learned corrnsel for the petitioner-a<: -'used and Mr.K.Devanath, learr-red counsel for the responclent I Io.2 - de-facto complainant.

¶46

The contention of the respondent )'{c.2- de-facto complainant is that the petitioner is in the habi t ,rf r:ontacting marriage wil h a person, filing criminal complaints against such person on c ne pretext or the other, more pard:r^1arly for the offence unci rr Sections 498-A of the Indian Pr na1^,3ode and extract mor e-r-- from such person and consent for mutual divorce. Acc, rrding to the respondent No.2-de-facfo :on-rplainant, the petitionr r was married to LW4, LW3, LW2 antl li na,lly with respondent Jo.2- de-facto complainant. The petiticner in respect of all her ea -lier three marriages prior to ht:r marriag,: with the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant, has l<: opr-ed some modus-oper rndi.

¶47

7 . The rllegation against the petitioner" s o far as this petition is , oncerned, the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the pet itioner has already married three p,:rson s prior to her marria 4e with respondent No.2-de-facto cornplainant. However, w) Lile filing the present criminal petitic,n for quash of the charge : heet, the petitioner has specifically rnt:nt.oned that

¶48

¶49

¶50

he has informed to the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant about her previous marriages. Further, it is also the case of the respondent No.2- de-facto complainant that after filing of the complaint in C.C.No. 1012 of 2Ol7 on the file of learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar registered for the offence under Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has demanded money for getting the said case withdrawn and give consent for mutual divorce, for which the respondent No.2- de-facto complainant did not agree and eventually respondent No.2- de-facto complainant was remanded to^judicial custody and after three days he was released.

¶51

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated^judgment decided betu,een State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and othersr, has lormulated certain guidelines under which Court can consider quashment of criminal case. The guidelines are:

¶52

"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or tLrc complaint, euen if they are taken at their face ualue and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constihtte anA offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶53

(b) where the allegations in the First Infonnation Report and other mateials, if ang, accomponging the F.LR. do not disclose a cogni-zable offence, justifuing

'^{1992elR 604}

1 \

an iru estigation bA police officers under Sen 156(1) of tht <-ode except under an order of o ,;aqlstrate tuith the puruiew of Section 155(2) oJ- the^('ctL7e:

¶58

(c) uhere the uncontrouerted allellations mode in the f^'R or^'complaint and the euidence < oile,:ted in suppt rl ol' the same do not disclose tlLe conlplission of ang o fen<:e and make out a case againsl th= ,tcctsed;

¶59

@)^{uthere the allegations in theF'IR! donot} consh'ute a cognizable offence but constitute onlA a non-c' 'gnizable offence, no inuestigation is oennitted bg a,,6lies officer tuithout an order oJ a Magrstrate as contet tplated under Section 155(2) of tle Code;

¶60

(e) uthere ttrc ollegations made in ttkz FIR or compl irtt are so absurd and inherently imy.,ntbable on the bt. sis of which no prudent person canl e,rc'r rcach a just r ottclusion that there is suffrcient qr')und for procet dinq against the acansed;

¶61

(fl uthere there is an express legal bar en.trroJled in onA o the prouisions of the Code or tlte con cttnuzd Act (unde' tuhich a criminal proceeding is institttted) to the irtstitt tion and continuance of the proceedhtg's and/ or tuheru there is a specific prouision in the^(:ode v the conce ned Act, prouiding efficacious re,Jre s.r; -for the griew.,u:e of the aggieued partA;

¶62

@)^{LDhere acriminal proceeding isni ant;tfestlg} attenr ed ulith mola fide and/ or uhere the pl'oceeding is mt:^ttc'iouslA instituted uith an ulteior n;othte for LL)real ing uengeance on the acatsed oncl u'ith a uieu to spii z him due to priuate and personel gnt,77,e.'

¶63

As pe: the ratio laid down in the above said zrut-horit5r, it is to be exami red whether case on hand, falts in a:ry one of the categories r elltioned above.

¶64

In or<: :r t() constitute an offence und<:r Se'cti,rn 42O of the Indian Penzr Oode, the respondent No.2-de-facto cr )ml)lainant^'s

¶65

¶66

¶67

expected to prove that he was induced by the petitioner and then married him and subsequently demanded money in order to get their marriage annulled. According to the respondent No.2- de-facto complainant, the petitioner with an intention of extracting money from the respondent No.2- de-facto complainant as in the case off her earlier three marriages, has married the respondent No.2- de-facto complainant and later, as usual hled a criminal complaint against him, basing on which the Police have registered a case in Crime No.492 of 2Ol7 Vanasthalipuram Police Station under Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code.

¶68

1 1. The contentions raised by the respondent No.2- de-facto complainant have been totally denied by the petitioner. There is prima-facie material in the form of complaint, charge sheet, supported by the statements of respondent No.2-de-facto complainant and other witnesses, who are the former husbands of petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the case against the petitioner cannot be quashed summarily. The issues that are raised by the respondent No.2-de -facto complainant, which are denied by the petitioner have to be settled only after framing appropriate charges and on examining the witnesses and on perusal of the documents, if any.

¶69

¶70

¶71

It is alk ged by the learned counsel for thc pel itioner that the responder t N o.2- de-facfo complainant is also zr^,:lir'()rce and he has given >aper publication inviting marriage pr<. por;als and suppressed h: s earlier marriage and having a chilc. rhrough his previous wifi. and therefore, the respondent N<t.2!- de-facto complainant I as committed cheating by suppressrrr;4 lhe f,acts. It is to be no -ed that the^petitioner has not filed a cc,mplaint against the rc spondent No.2- de-facto complainant irL respect of alleged cheatr rg. Therefore, the issues concerned :,rlleging the concealment of facts by the respondcnt Ntt.2- de-facto complainant ; bout his alleged previous marriage and having a child througl his earlier wife cannot be consider-ecl in this criminal petit on. Except alleging that ttre allegati<;ns against the petitioner lre false and baseless and that he has suppressed his earlier m, rrriage, there is no other ground rrised by the petitioner in -his criminal petition to quash the prrx:eedings against the p :titioner in C.C.No. 1012 of 2Ol7 on the lile of learned XXj r' Metropolitan Magistrate, Cy:r:rabad at Hayathnagar.

¶72

Conside^-ing the facts and circumstances anrl sin,:e there is pima-facir, material against the petitioner-a c<:used, the criminal petitl -ln to quash C.C.No. i012 of 2017 c,r.r the file of

¶73

¶74

learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

¶75

Hayathnagar against the^{petitioner-accused} is liable to be

¶76

dismissed.

¶77