CRLP/6704/2012 of Charles Derrick Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 December 2012

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed toquash the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2012 on the file of the XIIIMetropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the presentCriminal Petition may be stated as follows:

Marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 wasperformed on 06.01.2006 at Century Baptist Church, Secunderabad,as per Christian rites and customs. At the time of marriage, on demandmade by petitioner No.1 and his parents, the engagement andmarriage expenses, which amounted to Rs.3,00,000/- were borne outby parents of respondent No.2. Since the date of marriage, petitionerNo.1 and his parents insisted her to get additional dowry ofRs.1,00,000/-, otherwise she would be necked out from the house, sothat her husband would get a new wife. Petitioner No.1 used to cometo the house in a drunken condition and beat her mercilessly and hit onher private parts. Petitioner No.1 also took nude video and sexuallyharassed her without her consent by placing a camera in the room. Petitioner No.1 also threatened her that if she discloses the saidincident to anybody, he would show the video to his friends. In-laws ofrespondent No.2 also used to pick up quarrels with her for pettyreasons and used to abuse her in filthy language and asked her to getadditional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondent No.2 was blessed witha male child, who is aged about 4 years at the time of complaint. On26.02.2008, the petitioners forced respondent No.2 to leave the houseand asked her to get divorced.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that takingcognizance of the case is barred by limitation; that no petition is filed tocondone the delay in filing the charge sheet; that continuation ofproceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process ofCourt and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against thepetitioners.

4. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheetagainst the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short,‘the Act’). Punishment for the offence under Section 498A IPC mayextend upto three years and also fine. Under Section 468 (1) Cr.P.C.,except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shalltake cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section(2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. Sub-Section (2) readsthat the period of limitation shall be a)……………………………….

b)………………………………

c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment forterm exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

5. Admittedly, punishment for the offence under Section 498A IPCis not exceeding three years. The offence under Section 3 of the Act ispunishable upto five years. Section 7 (2) of the Act, provides thatChapter XXXVI of Cr.P.C. 1973 shall not apply to any offencepunishable under this Act. The offence under Section 4 of the Actpunishment may extend upto two years. Therefore, on the ground oflimitation for taking cognizance, the proceedings for the offences

punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act need not be quashed. Ifthe allegation in the charge sheet and the statements of witnessesrecorded by police during the course of investigation are taken as trueand correct, it is clear that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 harassed respondentNo.2 both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-; on 26.02.2008, the petitioners also necked out respondent No.2 fromthe house; the petitioners also did not even take care of the child andasked her to get divorced. No doubt, offence under Section 498A IPCis major offence, but, at the same time, there was no harassment orcruelty within the meaning of 498A IPC that took place on or after26.02.2008. That is the last date where respondent No.2 was neckedout from the house directing her to bring additional dowry ofRs.1,00,000/-. The limitation for taking cognizance commences from26.02.2008. If that is taken into consideration, the cognizance was nottaken on or before 26.02.2011. On the other hand, cognizance of thecase was taken in the year 2012. In such circumstances, takingcognizance of the case is barred by limitation insofar as the offenceunder Section 498A IPC is concerned. Therefore, the proceedingsagainst the petitioners are liable to be quashed for the offencepunishable under Section 498A IPC.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing theproceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2012 on the file of the XIII MetropolitanMagistrate, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in respect of offenceunder Section 498A IPC only.

DECEMBER 28, 2012YVL

________________

K.C.BHANU, J

YVL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6704 OF 201228.12.2012