THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4452 of 2008 Dated:15.07.2010 Between: Chepuri Prabhavathi, And others. ….Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Section House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station, Through P.P. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4452 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 are accused Nos.2 to 7 in Crime No.644 of 2008 of L.B.Nagar Police Station under Sections 323, 420 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They filed the instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), for quashing the investigation of the crime. Petitioner No.1 is mother of Chepuri Hanumantha Rao (accused No.1), petitioner Nos.2 and 4 are sisters and petitioner Nos.3, 5 and 6 are his brothers. His first marriage ended in divorce. Later accused No.1 married the second respondent herein (hereafter called, complainant) on 02.12.2004 at Saroornagar. The couple left for London where statedly accused No.1 was working as a Software Engineer. The couple came back on 25.12.2004 and again left on 31.12.2004. Ultimately on 27.03.2008 accused No.1 and the complainant came to India and within a period of twenty days i.e., on 17.04.2008 accused No.1 filed O.P.No.244 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District (now renumbered as O.P.No.317 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the First Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District) for divorce. The same is pending. Three months thereafter on 02.07.2008 the complainant approached the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, alleging offences against accused Nos.1 to 7. The same was endorsed to the Police who registered the crime and took up investigation. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint on the face of it does not disclose the offences under Sections 323, 420 and 498A of IPC against accused Nos.2 to 7 – petitioners herein. Per contra, Counsel for the complainant relies on certain portions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint filed before the criminal Court and contends that these constitute offences mentioned in the complaint. In paragraph 6 of the complaint it is alleged as follows. …The accused 2 to 7 started pressurizing the accused-1 to desert the complainant since the complainant is hailing from poor family and they are not able to fulfill the illegal demands of the accused 2 to 7. The complainant and accused-1 left for U.K on 01.02.2006 and from that time onwards, whenever calls come from the accused 2 to 7 from India the accused-1 used to beat the complainant and used to demand to sign papers consenting for 3rd marriage of the accused-1 and also used to threaten that he will convert as Muslim, where he would have ample opportunities to marry number of wives… The contents of paragraph 7 read as under. The accused-6 and accused-5 & 2 are completely depended on accused-1 for their monetary benefits. All the times they are spoiling the mind of accused-1 so as to compel the accused-1 to obtain divorce from the complainant. All of them are receiving huge sums from the accused-1 since the accused-1 is a Software Engineer. The accused-1 has some times send some money to complainant’s sister for medical treatment who is suffering from mental disorder, at his will. The accused-1 taking the advantage of the said fact interpreting the same in other way. The complainant further alleged that on 27.03.2008 when she came to India along with accused No.1 all the accused sent her to her parents, that when she along with her father went to the house of accused No.1, accused No.6 kicked on the stomach and pulled her by catching her hair openly declaring that they are not interested and asked her to sign the documents for divorce, and that accused Nos.2, 5 and 4 also came to the complainant’s house and demanded her to agree for divorce. The point for consideration is whether any ingredients of Section 498A of IPC are made out against accused Nos.2 to 7. If a married woman is harassed by her husband or relatives of the husband with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or money, the same would amount to subjecting the woman to cruelty attracting imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine. The demand for money or valuable security is the essential ingredient for the purpose of Section 498A of IPC. If any other demand is made or a married woman is coerced for any other purpose, Section 498A of IPC is not attracted. There cannot be any dispute that on reading the entire complaint no such allegation is made that accused Nos.2 to 7 ever demanded the complainant or coerced her for more money. Insofar as the offence under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, it is a noncognizable offence and bailable offence. Therefore, as per the principle laid down in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal[1], the investigation is not permitted by a Police Officer without the order of the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. In the complaint the allegation of cheating is made against accused No.1 alone to the effect that he suppressed the factum of his first marriage and married the complainant. Therefore, the complaint does not disclose any offences allegedly committed by the petitioners herein. The investigation is, therefore, to be quashed. In the result, for the above reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the investigation of Crime No.644 of 2008 of P.S. L.B.Nagar, insofar as the petitioners herein is quashed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.07.2010 vs [1] AIR 1992 SC 604 = 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335