CRLP/227/2011 of Ayyalareddi Venkata Babu , A.R.Venkata Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 December 2012

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A3under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings inC.C.No.276 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate,Tirupathi, Chittoor district.

2. The allegation in the complaint would go to show thatmarriage of A1 with the defacto complainant was performed on 13-11-2009. At the time of marriage an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- wasgiven towards dowry and 40 soverins of Gold jewellery and otherarticles were also presented. After marriage, A1 to A3 startedharassing the complainant to bring additional dowry. Ultimately, allthe accused necked out from her matrimonial house with herwearing clothes insisting her to bring the additional dowry. Hence,the present complaint.

3. Heard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a falsecase is foisted against the petitioners, that no part of cause ofaction arose at Thirupathi; that the Inspector General of Police,Rayalaseema Region conducted an enquiry by stating that noindependent witnesses were examined residing at Chennai andtherefore, the continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse ofprocess of law.

5. Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. canbe invoked or exercised when there is abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice or to carry out orders passedunder the Code. If the uncontroverted allegations in the F.I.R. donot make out a prima facie case, then only, the question ofquashing the complaint arises. When the allegation in thecomplaint made out a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty ofthe police to conduct investigation. That statutory duty cannot becurtailed or interdicted at the threshold of the investigation.

6. Section 498-A of IPC reads as follows:

“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of awoman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, beingthe husband or the relative of the husband of awoman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall bepunished with imprisonment for a term which mayextend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation:- For the purposes of this section,"cruelty" means:- (a) any wilful conduct which is ofsuch a nature as is likely to drive the woman tocommit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger tolife, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of thewoman; or (b) harassment of the woman where suchharassment is with a view to coercing her or anyperson related to her to meet any unlawful demandfor any property or valuable security or is on accountof failure by her or any person related to her to meetsuch demand.”

7. From the above provision, it is clear that any unlawfuldemand made by husband or relative of husband of a woman is acruelty. The allegations in the charge sheet and the statements ofthe witnesses recorded under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. would go toshow that all the petitioners subjected the de-facto complainant tocruelty with regard to get additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- fromher parents, which is an unlawful demand within the meaning ofSection 498-A IPC. According to the learned counsel for thepetitioners, the said allegation of demand has taken place atChennai, therefore, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thirupathi has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

8. Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

“Offence triable where act is done or consequenceensues. When an act is an offence by reason ofanything which has been done and of a consequencewhich has ensued, the offence may be inquired intoor tried by a Court within whose local jurisdictionsuch thing has been done or such consequence hasensued.”

Therefore, from the above provision, it is clear that when theoffence has taken place at several places each of such place getsjurisdiction; that part of the cause of action arose at Thirupathibecause marriage held at Thirupathi and at the time of marriage,on demand made by the petitioners, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-towards dowry was given. Demanding of dowry is a prima facieoffence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Therefore, a part ofcause of action arose at Thirupathi and the learned Magistrate hasgot jurisdiction to try the case.

9. Coming to the enquiry conducted by the Inspector General ofPolice, it is observed that no independent witnesses wereexamined; that the Investigating Officer grossly neglected theinvestigation procedure; that charge sheet is filed without securingproper evidence and that no witness from Chennai was examined.

10. As seen from the material on record, it can be said that theenquiry report has nothing to do with the case because theInvestigating Officer examined six witnesses to corroborate theevidence of the de-facto complainant. So, at this stage, if thestatements of LWs.1 to 7 are taken as true and correct, they madeout a prima facie case and hence, question of quashingproceedings does not arise.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that thepresence of the petitioners may be dispensed with before the trialcourt. For this purpose, the petitioners have to file an applicationbefore the trial court and on such filing, the trial court shallconsider the same, in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

13. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this CriminalPetition, if any, shall stand closed.

December 28, 2012PN

_______________________

JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

PN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.227 of 2011

December 28, 2012