THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3201 and 3119 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Petitioners in Crl.P.No.3119 of 2011 are A-1 to A-3 in C.C.No.28/2011 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Magistrate, Amalapuram (trial Court). They filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings against them in the said case. 2. Crl.P.No.3201 of 2011 is filed by A-1 in C.C.No.28 of 2011 questioning the trial court order passed in Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2011 refusing to return his passport. The second respondent Smt Sunkara Lakshmi Mani Kumari in both these criminal petitions is the de facto complainant and she is admittedly the wife of the first accused. A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1. Hence both these petitions can be disposed of by this common order. 3. On a report given by the de facto complainant a case in Cr.No.200/2010 was registered in Amalapuram police station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against A-1 to A-3 and also 9 others. After completing the investigation the Amalapuram town police charge sheeted only A-1 to A-3 for the above offences deleting the 9 others. The substance of the prosecution case is thatA-1 married the de facto complainant on 23.04.2000 at Annavaram and at that time her parents gave Rs.5 lakhs cash and also presented gold ornaments and also Acs.2-00 of coconut garden towards dowry to A-1 and his parents on their demand. It is stated that subsequently A-1 and the de facto complainant lived together for some time and they were also blessed with a son. It is further alleged that during 2003 A-1 went to Dubai for employment leaving the de facto complainant in his parents house and from then onwards all the three started harassing the de facto complainant for additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and further demanded transfer of immovable property i.e. a building and some other land in the name of A-1 threatening that if the de facto complainant and her parents fail to meet that demand they would go for a second marriage for A-1. Thereafter the de facto complainant gave the report and that culminated in police filing the aforesaid criminal case against A-1 to A-3. The said is pending trial. It must be mentioned here that A-1 is admittedly employed in Dubai and this is relevant for the other petition. 4. During pendency of the above case A-1 filed Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2011 for return of his passport which is said to have been deposited by him in the trial court for going to Dubai in connection with his work. That application was dismissed on 09.03.2011 by the trial court. As already mentioned supra A-1 filed Crl.P.No.3201 of 2011 against the dismissal of the above application while A-1 to A-3 filed the other Crl.P.No.3119 of 2011 for quashing the criminal case. 5. Thus the following two points arise for determination in these two criminal petitions. (i) Whether there are grounds to quash the said C.C.No.28/2011? (ii) Whether or not the trial court is justified in refusing to return the passport of A-1? Point No.1: 6. Coming to point No.1, it may be noted that the FIR discloses that the de facto complainant gave report in all against 12 persons including the sisters and other relatives of her husband. The police investigated into the case and charge sheeted only 3 persons (A-1 to A-3) i.e. the de facto complainant’s husband and his parents deleting others from the case. The allegations in the charge sheet would show offences under Sections 498-A, 506 read with S.34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The various contentions raised on their behalf pertain to prove their innocence and therefore they fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact which have to be decided on evidence and not in this petition. It was contended on behalf of the first petitioner that most of the time he was in Dubai and there was no scope for him to harass the de facto complainant. It should be noted that the complaint itself reads that during the period when they lived together the first petitioner used to harass her and even when he came to India for holidays that harassment continued. 7. Another argument is that the marriage of the de facto complainant and the first petitioner took place on 23.04.2000 and the report to the police was given on 4th November 2010 and consequently the gap of nearly ten years is a circumstance which weighs in favour of the petitioners. There is no force in this contention. The report shows that the de facto complainant made allegations which even relate to the period which is in the immediate neighbourhood in point of time prior to the date of the complaint. Another contention raised on his behalf is that it is mentioned in the report itself that the de facto complainant and her husband set up separate family unable to bear with the harassment of his parents and relatives and this is a circumstance weighing in the first petitioners favour. It may however be noted that the de facto complainant specifically alleged that despite the same her husband used to beat and ill-treat her at the behest of his parents and her husband and his parents also were making attempts to perform a second marriage to her husband with one Karri Kanaka Durga. These allegations also disclose the offences not only against the de facto complainant’s husband but also his parents. Hence the plea of the first petitioner for quashing the FIR cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. 8. Then turning to the case of the petitioners 2 and 3, they are the parents-in-law of the de facto complainant. The allegations in the report given to the police and also in the charge sheet would show that they too harassed the de facto complainant for money and property. What should be noted is that both these petitioners also are residents of Amalapuram which is the place of residence of the de facto complainant also. It is the case of the de facto complainant that after her husband left for Dubai she stayed with them for some time and harassment continued during that period. Thus it cannot be said that this is a case where the allegations against them can be rejected on the face of them as unbelievable or that the said allegations even if believed do not disclose any offence against them. Regarding the separate living of the de facto complainant and her husband and the alleged second marriage proposal with Karri Kanaka Durga and the complicity of these two petitioners for the same are mentioned in the complaint and they are already referred to supra. All the pleas taken in support of the case of these two petitioners also would fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact which have to be decided only on evidence. That exercise can be undertaken only by the trial court before which the case is pending. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners however relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court one given in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India[1] and the other given in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand[2] and argued that basing on the principles laid down therein the present case against all these petitioners should be quashed. In the first case the constitutional validity of Section 498-A IPC was upheld and it was also held that though the said provision is capable of being misused that by itself cannot be a ground to hold it unconstitutional. In the second case it was held that the allegations made by the de facto complainant therein against the married sister and the brother of her husband who were living away from them during the period when the offence under Section 498-A IPC was alleged to have been committed and in that view of the matter the complaint against them was quashed on the ground that it was an abuse of the process of law against them. It is true that in both the above cases it was observed that Section 498-A IPC provision was being misused in several cases leading to harassment of the husband and his relatives. There is no dispute on this aspect. 10. It should however be noted that in the second of the above decisions it was equally laid down that a high court should also be careful in exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C so as not to exercise it to stifle legitimate prosecution. In the present case as already mentioned supra the police themselves have deleted 9 relatives of the husband but charge sheeted only A-1 to A-3 i.e. petitioners herein. The allegations in the charge sheet, to repeat, do disclose offences against these petitioners. Hence it follows that there are no grounds to quash this case against these petitioners and this point is decided against them and the case against the petitioners has to be decided one way or the other by the trial court. Point No.2: 11. Then coming to this point it relates to the return of passport of the first petitioner. The plea of the petitioner is that he is working as Oil Field Supervisor in a company called “Weatherford Oil Tool Middle East Limited” and that that job is his livelihood and therefore his passport should be returned to him to attend his duties at Dubai. The trial court considered this aspect and observed that even according to the plea of the first petitioner he will have to be ‘on duty’ for 35 days and ‘off duty’ for the other 35 days and he will have to be at Dubai only. Having observed that the trial court concluded that if passport is given back to him and he is permitted to go Dubai there is every chance of the first petitioner not returning to India to avoid this criminal case. The trial court in its discretion expressed this apprehension. 12. The first petitioner has in his affidavit mentioned that he has transferred more than Rs.50 lakhs in the name of the de facto complainant and she is holding the said amounts in fixed deposits in two banks and other properties and therefore the apprehension expressed by the trial court should be rejected as unfounded. It may be noted that the criminal case is now numbered and it is C.C.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the trial court. If the first petitioner is now allowed to leave India and if for any reason he does not return the concerned police have to take several steps which involve a long drawn procedure to bring him back. In these circumstances the order of the trial court rejecting the request of the first petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. Ends of justice would be served if the trial court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible fixing a time limit. For the reasons aforesaid the order of the trial court relating to this point is confirmed. 13. Accordingly both these criminal petitions are dismissed. However the trial court is directed to take up the C.C.No.28 of 2011 for disposal as expeditiously as possible and dispose it of preferably within a period or four months from the date of receipt of this order without being influenced in any manner by this order. Both sides shall cooperate with the trial court. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 4th July 2011 CVRK [1] (2005) 6 SCC 281 [2] (2010) 7 SCC 667