Cri. Petn. No. 3844 of 2002. Case: T. Balaji Rao Vs State of A.P. and Anr.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Cri. Petn. No. 3844 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: T. Balaji, Adv. and For Respondents: Public Prosecutor and N. Vijayasri, Adv. |
| Judges | P. Lakshmana Reddy, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 498A; Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Sections 178, 156, 203 |
| Judgement Date | March 03, 2006 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
-
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No. 1319 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi.
-
The petitioner herein is the accused and the second respondent herein is the de facto complainant in the said C. C. No. 1319 of 2000 and they will hereinafter be referred in this order as accused and the de facto complainant.
-
The relevant facts in brief are as follows:
The marriage between the accused and the de facto complainant took place on 12-8-1998 at Tirupathi and after the marriage on the same day the accused took the de facto complainant to Chennai. On 22-10-1998 the de facto complainant Radharani filed a report in Alipiri Police Station alleging that on the date of the marriage an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and 13 sovereigns of gold were given to the accused by the mother of the de facto complainant besides bearing marriage expenses and from next day onwards the accused, his mother Devaki Bai, his brother Srinu and his relatives Ramdas, Sarojini Bai, Kasturibai, Krishnabai and Sonabai harassed her and also beat her saying that she is illiterate and she brought less dowry and that if she dies they can perform another marriage to the accused No.1 and get more dowry. She further alleged in the said report that when her mother came to Chennai and invited her to Tirupathi for Brahmotsvam of Lord Venkateswara, the accused and his relatives quarrelled with her and that in the presence of her mother she was beaten and was abused vulgarly and that the accused and his relatives threatened her and took her signatures on some papers and that later they sent her to Tirupathi along with police.
-
Alipiri police registered the said case as Crime No. 177 of 1998 under Sec. 498-A IPC. Thereafter, Alipiri police submitted final report before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi referring the case as mistake of fact on 22-1-1999. While the final report was pending consideration before the Magistrate, the de facto complainant approached the Additional Superintendent of Police, Tirupathi and submitted a representation and thereafter the Additional Superintendent of Police made endorsement to the effect that the dowry cases should not be referred on flimsy grounds without permission from the Additional Superintendent of Police, whereupon lipiri police moved the Magistrate for permission to reopen the investigation and obtained permission and thereafter further investigated and filed charge sheet against the present petitioner and 7 others including his mother and brother arraying them as A-1 to A-8 alleging that they harassed the de facto complainant for dowry and subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A I. P. C.
-
On the said further report, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the case against A-1 to A-8. Aggrieved by taking cognizance of the case, the first accused who is the husband of the de facto complainant filed the present application before this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. praying this Court to call for the records in C. C. No. 1319 of 2000 from the file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi and to quash the same.
-
The accused pleaded in the grounds of petition that it is evident from the complaint lodged by Radharani dated 30-10-1998 that the alleged incident took place at No. 116, Thendral Colony, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai in Tamil Nadu. It is well settled law of Criminal Jurisprudence that there can be no second F. I. R. on the same incident after making a first information report in Thirumangalam Police Station in Tamil Nadu. The first respondent Alipiri Police Station has no jurisdiction to register a complaint on 22-10-1998 on the alleged incident that took place before 21-10-1998 at Chennai. Nothing is stated about the action taken by the Thirumangalam Police Station at Madras. If no action was taken and if the complaint was genuine, nothing prevented the affected party to move the High Court of Madras under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Without taking any action on the complaint given by her mother, she could not be allowed to file a report in Tirupathi in respect of the same cause of action. It is further submitted that the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi has no jurisdiction to try the cases the alleged incident took place at Chennai. It is further stated in the petition that Radharani was brought to Tirupathi at her request with police protection on 20-10-1998 with all her articles and jewels and she went to the house of her uncle P. C. Venugopal Rao residing at No. 90-A, Bazaar Street, Tirupathi and the said Venugopal Rao agreed to take care of Radharani. It is further stated that Radharani's mother Smt. Varalakshmi Bai had filed a Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1544 of 1998 in the High Court of Madras and in that petition the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai filed counter on 20-10-1998 and thereafter the Habeas Corpus Petition was dismissed by the Court on 11-1-1999. The III Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Tirupathi cannot go into the matter that was decided by the High Court of Madras nor sit in judgment on the order of Madras High Court dated 12-10-1998 in W. P. No. 15579 of 1998. Only under the orders of Madras High Court dated 12-10-1998 Radharani was sent back to Tirupathi with adequate police protection. Radharani had availed the benefits of the order-dated 12-10-1998 of the Madras High Court and she brought all belongings to Tirupathi at the time of leaving Madras with police protection. Therefore, the allegation under Section 498-A I. P. C. could not be made out. All averments were made in the complaint of Radharani. Alipiri Police without applying their mind acted at the behest of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Tirupathi and reopened the matter, which was already referred as mistake of fact just to satisfy the higher officials. It is further pleaded in the petition grounds that any trial by the III...
To continue reading
Request your trial