Criminal Petition No. 3712 of 2011. Case: Bondi Janaki Vs State of A.P.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Petition No. 3712 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B.M. Patro, Adv. and For Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor and Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Advs. |
| Judges | T. Sunil Chowdary, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Sections 154, 156, 156(3), 173, 173(2), 190(1)(a), 200, 482; Constitution of India - Articles 19, 21, 226, 227; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 193, 198, 199, 209, 34, 420, 464, 465; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 2(d) |
| Judgement Date | July 23, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
T. Sunil Chowdary, J.
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.38 of 2011 of Gara Police Station, Srikakulam District.
2. The factual matrix, leading to the filing of the present petition, are as follows:
First petitioner is the wife, 2nd respondent is the father and the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.82 of 2010 of P.S. Gara is the mother of one Bondi Bhujanga Rao (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). The marriage of the first petitioner was performed with the deceased in the year 2003. The deceased died on 20.05.2005 while working as seaman in Wilco Ship Management & Travels Private Limited, Mumbai. The employer of the deceased called the first petitioner and the parents of the deceased for settlement and receiving of the compensation amount of the deceased. For one reason or the other, no settlement was arrived at between the first petitioner and the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the employer of the deceased deposited an amount of Rs.33,85,762/- before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act-cum-Labour Court at Mumbai. The first petitioner herein filed Application (WCA) No. 398/A-48 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for W.C. Act & Judge, XI Labour Court at Mumbai and the same was allowed on 10.08.2006 awarding compensation of Rs.28,85,762/- to the first petitioner and Rs.2.50 lakhs to each of the parents of the deceased.
3. While the things stood thus, the mother of the deceased filed a private complaint on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the first petitioner for the offences under sections 193, 198, 199, 209, 420, 464 and 465 IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to the Station House officer, Gara under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and submission of report. After receipt of the complaint, the Station House officer, Gara Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 82 of 2010 under Sections 193, 198, 199, 209, 420, 464, 465 IPC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After conducting investigation, the Investigating officer referred the case as mistake of fact and issued a notice to the de-facto complainant. In the notice, it is stated that if the defacto-complainant is not satisfied with the result of the final report, she can approach the concerned Magistrate Court.
4. On 12.04.2011, the father of the deceased i.e., 2nd respondent herein submitted a complaint to the Station House officer, Gara Police Station alleging that the petitioners herein forged the signature of the then village sarpanch and gave false evidence before the Labour Court, Mumbai. Basing on the said complaint, the Station House officer Gara P.S registered a case in Cr.No.38 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 420, 193, 198, 465, 209, 199 r/w 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein. Feeling aggrieved by the registration of the criminal case, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in view of the principles viz., 1) registration of second FIR in respect of an act or omission on the part of an individual or individuals, which constitute the alleged offence, is not legally sustainable; and 2) there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint. To substantiate the submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:
-
Babubhai v State of Gujarat
21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counter claim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted.
-
T.T.Antony v State of Kerala
27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial