CRLP/9635/2012 of C.Manchali Vs The State of A.p., P.S., M.R.Palli, on 30 December 2014

ORDER:

This is a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) (for short, ‘the Code’)by the petitioners/accused 2 to 4 ( ‘A2 to A4’ for brevity) requesting toquash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.166/2011 on the file ofthe learned III Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi, ChittoorDistrict taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 498 Aand 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

2. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows: ‘OneB.Ramachandra Reddy (A1) is the husband of the second respondentherein. The marriage between A1 and the second respondent wasperformed on 12.03.1980. Subsequently, disputes had arisen betweenthe spouses. On 06.11.2010, the second respondent had lodged a reportwith Circle Inspector, Tirupati Rural, stating inter alia about the demandsfor the dowry made by A1/her husband and the cruelty meted out to herand the continuation, without any change, of same conduct by A1 despitepatient waiting by her with the fond hope that there may be a change inthe conduct and attitude of A1. It is further alleged in the said report ofthe second respondent that the A1 without changing his behaviour had anillicit intimacy with one woman by name Manchali, who is A2/the firstpetitioner herein, and had begotten two children through the said womanand had also made arrangements for settling the property on her and thatwhen the second respondent had questioned A1 about the same in May2009, he had beaten her with an iron chair and that A2 to 4 i.e., the saidManchali and her parents had subjected the second respondent toharassment and cruelty by their illegal behaviour and had insulted herand also defamed her and had caused loss of reputation to her in the society and that A2 to 4 and A1 are together making attempts to kill herand are also threatening to cause harm to her life, in case the secondrespondent fails to agree for compromise in the case for divorce. Thereport with the abovementioned and other averments led to theregistration of the case in Crime No.155/2010 against the accused forthe offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 109 of the IndianPenal Code. After investigation, a charge sheet was initially filed againstall the accused including the petitioners/A 2 to 4 herein stating that theaccused had committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The present petitioners/A 2 to 4 therefore, had filed the presentpetition to quash the charge sheet/proceedings in C.C.No.166/2011 onthe file of the learned III Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi,Chittoor District inter alia contending as follows:

A2 to A4 are no way connected with the family of the secondrespondent and A1. They are innocent. They were falsely implicated inthe alleged offences. Since A2 to 4 are not related to the A1 and asthere is no averment in the entire complaint that they are related to thehusband of the second respondent, the case against the A2 to 4 for thealleged offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is notmaintainable. A1 had filed F.C.O.P. No.89/2009 on the file of the Courtof the learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati on 23.06.2009 underSection 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the secondrespondent for divorce. In the said case, the second respondent raisedthe issue of adulterous life of the husband with the A2 herein. The Courtbelow on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence hadrejected the said contention. Therefore, the second respondent filed afalse report on 06.11.2010 against her husband and the petitioners on thevery same grounds. There are no bona fides on the part of the secondrespondent in filing the said complaint. Except bald and omnibus

allegations and the allegation that A1 to 4 had threatened the secondrespondent with dire consequences of killing her if she failed to agree fordivorce there are no other allegations for making out ingredients of anyof the offences under Section 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for thepetitioners/A2 to A4 and the learned Public Prosecutor. No submissionsare made on behalf of the second respondent. I have carefully perusedthe material record.

5. Now the points for determination are –

(i) Whether the petitioners/A 2 to A4 have made out validand sufficient grounds for quashing the chargesheet/proceedings against them in C.C. No.166 of 2011 onthe file of the learned III Additional District MunsifMagistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor District?and sufficient grounds for quashing the chargesheet/proceedings against them in C.C. No.166 of 2011 onthe file of the learned III Additional District MunsifMagistrate, Tirupathi, Chittoor District?

(ii) Whether the un-controverted allegations made in thefirst information and the charge sheet and the evidencecollected in support of the same do not disclose prima-facie the commission of any offence, much less thealleged offences, and make out the case against the A2 toA4/petitioners?”first information and the charge sheet and the evidencecollected in support of the same do not disclose prima-facie the commission of any offence, much less thealleged offences, and make out the case against the A2 toA4/petitioners?”

6. POINTS:

6. (a) The introductory facts and the case of the second respondentas stated in her report lodged with the police are already stated supra. A1 is the husband of the second respondent. A reading of the report andthe contents of the material record produced before this Court wouldshow that there is no relationship between A2 to A4 on one hand and thesecond respondent and her husband/A1 on the other. Though in thecharge sheet originally filed, it was opined by the Investigating Officerthat the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section498-A. In a subsequent charge sheet filed, the said section of law wasomitted in so far as the present petitioners/A2 to 4 are concerned and itis stated that A1, who is the husband of the second respondent, is liable to be punished for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of theIndian Penal Code for subjecting the second respondent to cruelty. Thus, in the second/additional charge sheet while omitting Section 498-Aof the Indian Penal Code it is stated that the present accused and A1 areliable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 506 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the said chargesheet filed against A1 to A4 opining that they are liable to be punished forthe offences punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, the only question is as to whether the report lodgedwith the police and the charge sheet on a perusal contain necessaryaverments which prima facie show the commission of the said offenceand whether the allegations in the first information and the charge sheetif taken at their face value make out a case against A2 to A4 for the saidoffence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoevercommits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punishedwith imprisonment of either description for a term which mayextend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be tocause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to causedeath or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of anyproperty by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term whichmay extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for aterm which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with anyinjury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person orreputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent tocause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any actwhich he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which thatperson is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding theexecution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whomthe person threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit,threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.

6. (b) It is clearly averred in the report of the secondrespondent/the wife of A1 that he had developed illicit and extra maritalrelationship with A2 and that A3 and A4 are her parents and that A1 hadbegotten two children through his extra marital relationship with the A2and that A2 to A4 along with A1 had together acted in an illegal and highhanded manner and harassed her and caused loss to her reputation inthe society and had defamed her and that they all tried to kill her and thatshe was being forced to agree for a compromise in the divorce caseunder a threat to her life. In the charge sheet also it was opined that theevidence collected disclosed that all the accused 1 to 4 threatened(LW1) the second respondent with dire consequences and alsothreatened to kill her in case she fails to accept for divorce with A1 andthat therefore, accused 1 to 4 are liable for punishment under Section506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At this stage, asrightly contended by the learned Public Prosecutor this Court shall notappreciate and evaluate the evidence and must take the averments inthe report and the charge sheet on the face value and must examine asto whether the uncontroverted allegations on the face of the record makeout a case. On such examination, this Court is satisfied that there is nomerit in the present criminal petition.

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petitionshall stand closed.

____________________________

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

30[th] December 2014