CRLP/4815/2006 of Smt. Sunkara Padmaja, Vs State , on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

This petition is filed by the accused Nos.5 and 6 under Section482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.346 of 2006 on the fileof Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadepalligudem,relating to offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.

Marriage of the 2[nd] respondent with A1 took place on10.5.1998. Due to certain differences and on ground of cruelty, the 2[nd]respondent gave report to Ganapavaram Police against her husbandand relations of her husband. The police registered the report as casein Crime No.16 of 2001 for offence under Section 498-A IPC only andinvestigated into the same and filed charge sheet in the lower Court inC.C.No.185 of 2001 for offences punishable under Section 498-A IPCand Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Not satisfied withaction of the police, the 2[nd] respondent filed private complaint beforethe lower Court alleging that the police should have filed charge sheetfor offence punishable under Section 406 IPC also. The Magistrateforwarded the private complaint to the police for investigation underSection 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed anothercharge sheet by way of C.C.No.346 of 2006 in the lower Court against A1 to A6 for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC also. In thischarge sheet, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ganapavaram PoliceStation has clearly stated in last but one paragraph as follows:

“It is prayed that the offence is one and the sameoffence against the same accused, for the same offence,and the matter is pending trial in C.C.No.185/01. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Magistrate maykindly club the same in C.C.No.185/01 under Section210 Cr.P.C.”

Thus, charge sheet in C.C.No.346 of 2006 is only continuation ofearlier charge sheet in C.C.No.185 o 2001, even as per theinvestigation officer and the prosecution.

Previously, the petitioners 1 and 2 who are A4 and A5 inC.C.No.185 of 2001 filed Crl.P.No.1628 of 2003 in this Court underSection 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.185 of 2001of the lower Court. This Court by order dated 19.4.2006 inCrl.P.No.1628 of 2003 allowed the petition quashing proceedings inC.C.No.185 of 2001 insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that as continuation ofprevious proceedings, the present charge sheet in C.C.No.346 of 2006is also liable to be quashed in this petition.

As per allegations in the charge sheet, the victim/2[nd]respondent paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards ‘pasupu kumkuma’ to A1 to A6in the presence of witnesses and that A1 to A6 promised to return theamount with improvements to the 2[nd] respondent. It is also alleged

Conclusion

that ‘Adapaduchu lanchanam’ of Rs.10,000/- was paid to A5 and thatthe 2[nd] respondent was also having gold jewels. It is complaint of the2[nd] respondent that she is entitled to get back all the said amounts andjewellery and that A1 to A6 have not returned the same. Insofar as‘Adapaduchu lanchanam’ of Rs.10,000/- is concerned, it is only acustomary gift given to sister of the husband at the time of marriage. Itis only a gift and not an entrustment. It is not liable to be returned inany event. Insofar as ‘pasupu kumkuma’ amount of Rs.1,50,000/- andjewellery are concerned, the question of entrusting the same to A5who is married sister of A1 or to A6 who is husband of A5 and whowere living separately at Hyderabad may not arise at all. For the saidreason, this Court previously quashed proceedings in C.C.No.185 of2001 insofar as the petitioners are concerned. For the same reasons,the present petition is also liable to be allowed.

In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings inC.C.No.346 of 2006 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of theFirst Class, Tadepalligudem insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2/A5 andA6 are concerned.

_________________________________

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

CRIMINAL PETITION NO :4815 OF 2006

31.12.2009