CRLP/2265/2011 of Kurapati Vimala Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2012

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings incrime no.18 of 2011 of Tenali I Town police station, Guntur Districtregistered for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.

2. The petitioners herein are A.1 to A.6 in the above case. Basingon a complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant,police registered the aforesaid crime. The allegations in the complaintmay be stated as follows:

Marriage of the second respondent with A.2 took place 19.4.2009and at the time of the marriage, her father gave towards pasupu-kumkuma cash of Rs.10,00,000/- and 30 kasus of gold, which weretaken by her parents-in-laws stating that they would give the same asand when she asks. After she joined the matrimonial home at Eluru,her parents-in-law and brother of her husband used harass her. Theydemanded her to bring lakhs of rupees from my father. When she usedto tell the same to her husband, he used to maintain silence. For thelast six months from the date of lodging the complaint, her parents-in-law, brother and sister of her husband were torturing her for money. Unable to bear their harassment, she went to Tenali. They beat herseveral times and tried to kill her by cutting her left hand. Again, on10.2.2011, the petitioners came in car, beat her and forced her to signon papers to the effect that the amounts given by her father at the timeof her marriage are returned to her. At the intervention ofneighbourers, they went away stating that they would see her end.

3. Heard both sides.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerscontended that on the requisition given by the hospital authorities, police registered a case in crime no.34 of 2011 of Eluru II Town policestation on 12.2.2011 for the offences under Sections 324, 506 readwith 34 IPC for beating of the complainant which happened at Eluru,whereas that will run contrary to the allegations in the presentcomplaint i.e. on the same day, the present petitioners went to Tenaliand beat her and tried to obtain her signatures on papers forcibly andtherefore continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing butabuse of process of Court.

5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised toprevent abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice or to giveeffect to the order passed under the Code. At the initial stage ofinvestigation, the First Information Report is sought to be quashed.

There cannot be any dispute that if the allegations in the FirstInformation Report do not disclose a prima facie case of the offencesalleged, then only further investigation is nothing but abuse of processof Court. At this stage, it is not necessary to sift or weigh the contentsin the First Information Report. If the Investigating Officer suspects thata prima facie cognizable offence is committed, then it is his statutoryduty to conduct investigation and that duty cannot be curtailed orinterdicted exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Whether the incident of beating the defacto complainant on10.2.2011 had occurred at Eluru or at Tenali at the same time has tobe ascertained. Even assuming for a moment that the incident ofbeating on 10.2.2011 is an improvement, that cannot be a ground toquash the First Information Report, if it prima facie disclosescommission of a cognizable offence. Harassment of a woman wheresuch harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person relatedto her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuablesecurity or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her tomeet such demand, is cruelty within the meaning of Explanation toSection 498A IPC. The allegation is that for the last six months prior to

lodging of the complaint, petitioners were harassing the secondrespondent to bring additional dowry and unable to bear theharassment, she went to Tenali, which is prima facie cruelty within themeaning of explanation to Section 498A IPC. Therefore, there are nogrounds to quash the impugned proceedings.

7. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.

31.12.2012DRK

_______________

K.C.BHANU, J

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2265 OF 2011

31.12.2012