THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3514 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioners herein are A-1 to A-5 in Crime No.37 of 2011 of Tenali II Town Police Station, Guntur District. The said case was registered on a complaint referred by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali. They filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C), for quashing of the said FIR. 2. The first petitioner Swarna Sri Ram is husband of the second respondent herein who is the de facto complainant. The second petitioner is father and the third petitioner is brother of the first petitioner. The fourth petitioner is stated to be a relative of the petitioners 1 to 3 and 5th petitioner is a lady and she is alleged to be concubine of the first petitioner. The offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC read with Sec.34 IPC. 3. The complaint itself discloses that the marriage of the first petitioner and the second respondent took place on 02.06.1982 and they are also blessed with a son and a daughter by name Sarath and Lalitha. Both the son and daughter are stated to be grown up and they are also stated to be married now. The allegations in the complaint are that right from the date of the marriage the first petitioner at the instigation of the second and third petitioners and also the fourth petitioner always used to harass the de facto complainant and beat her in a drunken state coming home late in the night every day. It is then alleged that the first petitioner also developed illicit intimacy with the fifth petitioner and kept her as his concubine and when she (de facto complainant) questioned the same the first petitioner used to beat her. It is stated that throughout the first petitioner at the instance of the other petitioners totally neglected her and her children and subjected her to dowry harassment and also physical violence and it is alleged that the other petitioners have also complicity in committing the above offences said to have been committed against her. It is then stated that on 20.02.2011 at about 10'O clock in the night all the petitioners trespassed into the house of the parents of the de facto complainant and demanded her to sign on a stamp paper which happened to be a divorce deed and when she refused to do so all the petitioners warned her with dire consequences and also death and left that place. The version of t he de facto complainant is that though she gave complaints earlier to the police they did not take any action. With the above averments she filed the private complaint before the JFCM court mentioned supra and that court referred the matter to police and thereupon the present FIR was registered against all the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that all the allegations in the complaint are false and the de facto complainant gave the present complaint only after the first petitioner filed a divorce OP. He then argued that the second petitioner is aged about 80 years and is staying at Gurjala and like wise the third petitioner is a forest guard also staying at Gurjala and both of them have nothing to do with the married life of the first petitioner and the de facto complainant which took place in the year 1982. He then raised similar pleas in respect of the petitioners 4 and 5 stating that they are no way concerned with the family of the petitioners 1 to 3 and the de facto complainant. Even with regard to the first petitioner he argued that the allegations against him are false and the de facto complainant herself left his society long back and all the allegations relating to his illicit intimacy with the fifth petitioner are also false. On the above contentions the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing the FIR. In support of his contention for quashing the FIR he also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala[1]. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that the allegations made in the FIR do disclose offences mentioned in it against all the petitioners and since the matter is at the stage of investigation this is not a fit case for quashing the FIR. Similar stand has been taken by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. In the face of the above rival contentions it has now to be seen whether there are grounds for quashing the FIR and this is the only point that is raised in this petition. 7. So far as the fourth and fifth petitioners are concerned their names are given as Adusumilli Sridhar and Smt Parameswari and both are stated to be residents of Guntur town. The fourth petitioner is stated to be a relative of the first petitioner. It is not mentioned as to what is his relationship with the first petitioner and his parents. Similarly the details of the fifth petitioner are not given and nothing is mentioned as to how the first petitioner came into contact with her and what are the circumstances under which she came to be associated with the first petitioner. This apart the FIR also is not clear as to how the fourth and fifth petitioners would stand to gain from any property or money demanded by the first petitioner from the de facto complainant even though it is alleged that they also instigated the first petitioner to make those demands. The fifth petitioner even according to the FIR is running her own Xerox machine shop in Guntur town. These are the minus points which weigh against the de facto complainant so far as these two petitioners are concerned. 8. Then the second petitioner is said to be father of the first petitioner and he is now stated to be a resident of Guntur. The third petitioner who is said to be the brother of the first petitioner is stated to be the forest guard working at Gurjala. What should be noted is that the marriage of the first petitioner and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 02.06.1982 that is nearly 28 years prior to 06.04.2011 which is the date of registration of FIR. Both the son and daughter of the de facto complainant and the first petitioner are admittedly grown up children and they are also said to be married. The second petitioner even according to the FIR is stated to be aged 71 years and leading a retired life. The FIR is not clear as to how the second petitioner would stand to gain from any property brought by the de facto complainant on the demand of the first petitioner. So is the case with the third petitioner who is said to be a forest guard in government service. The first petitioner himself is aged about 53 years and going by his age and the FIR allegations it would be difficult to accept the contention of the de facto complainant that he can be said to be under the influence of petitioners 2 and 3. 9. It may then be noted that in the FIR it is stated that on 20.02.2011 at 10.00 p.m. all the petitioners/accused trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant at Tenali and forced her to sign on a divorce deed so that the first petitioner can marry the fifth petitioner or continue his relationship with her. It should be noted that the de facto complainant even according to her own version spent 26 years of married life with the first petitioner and their children are also grown up. In such a situation it is on the face of it difficult to accept her version that petitioners 2 to 5 could have committed the above act to get her signature on a divorce deed under threats. 10. It should be noted that the version of the first petitioner is that on 21.03.2010 he filed divorce O.P.No.64/2011 in the Family Court at Guntur against the de facto complainant and thereafter she filed a maintenance case M.C.No.5 of 2011 in the Court of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali and thereafter filed the present private complaint which was registered as Crime No.37 of 2011 on 06.04.2011 in the concerned police station on a reference of that complaint to the said police station. Prior to the filing of the complaint, the material papers filed by the petitioners would also show that there was exchange of notices between them. The allegations in the reply notice of the de facto complainant and the allegations in the FIR would all show that the main grievance of the de facto complainant is against the alleged misbehaviour of the first petitioner i.e. her husband and she has roped in the others without any reasonable basis in her allegations. 11. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand[2] their lordships of the Supreme Court were at pain to observe that Sec.498-A IPC is being misused and the women are in the habit of roping in as many relatives of the husband as they could without any reasonable basis. The present case also appears to be one such case having regard to the circumstances mentioned supra. For the aforesaid reasons I am of the opinion that the present FIR against petitioners 2 to 5 should be quashed as that is permissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. Then coming to the case in respect of first petitioner, as already seen supra the allegations in the FIR and even the reply notice dated 18.02.2011 filed by the first petitioner himself would show that the de facto complainant has made allegations against the first petitioner to the effect that he always used to harass her for dowry and money or properties. It is true that it is the version of the first petitioner that the de facto complainant herself left his society with children but the de facto complainant says that she was turned out by the first petitioner. It therefore cannot be said that the FIR allegations do not show any offences against him. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Shakson Belthissor’s case (1 supra) in respect of his contention that the FIR does not show any offences against the first petitioner also. It is difficult to accept this contention. In Shakson Belthissor’s case (1 supra) the Supreme Court dealt with the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC and laid down that to constitute the offence under it there must be harassment of woman with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR in the said case on the ground that it did not contain allegations showing such a demand. That is not the case here. The FIR allegations would show that the first petitioner used to beat the de facto complainant indiscriminately demanding her to bring money and additional dowry. Her version is the first petitioner continued with this attitude even after their children were grown up. Thus the above allegations would show the ingredients of the offence falling under clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC and some of the allegations would fall under clause (a) of the said provision. It is true that this complaint is given after the filing of the divorce OP by the first petitioner. That is however not a ground by itself to quash the FIR against him and it is quite possible that she gave the complaint against him probably after the things have reached a point of no return between them. In any event having regard to the allegations made against the first petitioner it follows that the matter needs investigation insofar as he is concerned. 14. Accordingly this petition insofar as petitioners 2 to 5 are concerned is allowed and the FIR against them is quashed, but this petition insofar as the first petitioner is concerned is dismissed and the police can go ahead with investigation against him. 15. Parting with the matter, it may be noted that an FIR is not be all and end all. It is well settled that a police investigating agency can also proceed against other persons/ accused whose names are not found in the FIR and charge sheet them if the investigation discloses their complicity also. In the present case the quashing of the FIR against petitioners 2 to 5 would have the effect of deleting their names from the FIR. In view of this and the above principle, it is made clear that the police who have statutory power of investigation under law would have the power to proceed against petitioners 2 to 5 and also other persons if their complicity is also found in the course of investigation. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 8th July 2011 CVRK [1] II (2009) DMC 412 (SC) [2] (2010) 7 SCC 667