HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA Crl.P.No.5494 of 2007 Date : 4-3-2010 Between : Pinnam Raju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju .. Petitioner And Pinnam Raju Kavitha And another .. Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA Crl.P.No.5494 of 2007 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.287/2007 on the file of IV Munsif Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District and to pass such other suitable orders. 2. Sri Rajasekhar, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition and further would point out that in the light of the various proceedings it is highly improbable that such episodes as specified in the charge sheet would have happened. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sanapareddy Maheedhar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1]. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the contents of the charge sheet and pointed out that in the light of the specific allegations made, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Sri Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent would maintain that inasmuch as specific stand is being taken that these allegations are false, the truth or otherwise of these allegations may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage when the parties choose to adduce evidence and these aspects cannot be decided in a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Heard the Counsel. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner married the 1st respondent on 12-2-1997 and they were blessed with a son. Subsequent thereto there were misunderstandings between the wife and the husband. The 1st respondent left the house of the 1st petitioner on 12-2-2002 and had gone to her parents house and thus from 12-2-2002 onwards, the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent have been living separately. It is also the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent filed G.O.P.No.477/2002 on 12-9-2002 on the file of Family Judge against the 1st petitioner for the custody of the son Krishna Prashant Varma. The 1st petitioner also filed O.P.No.19/2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili for restitution of conjugal rights. The 1st respondent filed C.M.P.No.509/2002 to transfer O.P.No.19/2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili to Family Court, Visakhapatnam and the said petition was allowed by this Court and O.P.No.19/2002 was transferred from the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili to the court of Family Judge, Visakhapatnam and is renumbered as O.P.No.473/2003 and it is stated that the same is still pending. 7. It is also the case of the petitioners that during the pendency of G.O.P.No.477/2002 and O.P.No.473/2003 (O.P.No.19/2002) the 1st respondent filed another petition O.P.No.644/2004 on 28-10-2004 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam for maintenance. In the said O.P.No.644/2004, the 1st respondent filed two applications I.A.No.1114/2004 for interim maintenance and another I.A.No.961/2004 for grant of temporary injunction not to alienate the property belonging to the 1st petitioner. In I.A.No.1114/2004 the learned Family Judge was pleased to order Rs.1000/- towards interim maintenance to the 1st respondent. It is also the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner filed C.R.P.No.5792/2005 before this Court against the orders in I.A.No.1114/2004 and this Court by order dated 1-9-2006 directed the Family Court, Visakhapatnam to dispose of O.P.Nos.473/2003 and O.P.No.644/2004 as early as possible within a period of six months. It is also stated that O.P.No.473/2003 and O.P.No.644/2004 are pending disposal. Further it is stated that G.O.P.No.477/2002 filed by the 1st respondent was dismissed by the Family Court on 31- 3-2006 giving certain directions. After the dismissal of G.O.P.No.477/2002 the 1st respondent gave a false report to the Station House Officer, Bheemunipatnam on 27-12-2006 against the petitioners for alleged offences under Section 498- A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act upon which the S.I. of Police registered the said false report as Cr.No.541/2006 and ultimately filed the charge sheet on 17-1- 2007 against all the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The learned IV Munsif Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.287/2007 and issued summons to all the petitioners. The specific stand taken by the petitioners is that the mere reading of the charge sheet would disclose the falsity of the allegations made. Further it is stated that the various proceedings would go to show that the stand taken by the 1st respondent is highly improbable and frivolous. In view of the same, the proceedings under challenge are liable to be quashed. 8. In the decision referred (1) supra, the Apex Court had referred to the decisions in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal [2] and also placed reliance on M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works ltd. V. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [3] wherein the Apex Court while referring to several other decisions as well at para-26 observed as hereunder : “The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. It if appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that even there would be no justification for interference by the high Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.” 9. On a careful analysis of the allegations made in the charge sheet, especially in the light of the specific stand taken by the petitioners that these allegations are false, inasmuch as whether the allegations are bona fide or whether the allegations are false, these aspects cannot be gone into at this stage and this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit matter to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed. _________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 4-3-2010 AM [1] AIR 2008 S.C. 787 [2] 1992 Sup. S.C.C. 335 [3] (2005) 1 SCC 122