Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 1376
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : RAMESH RANGANATHAN
TAMMINEEDI BHASKARA RAO - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 11/18/2006
Criminal Petition 3670 Of 2005
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 417, 418, 420, 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 – Demand of Dowry – Cheating – Quash of Criminal proceedings – Held, since Rule 10 of the A. P. Dowry Prohibition rules prescribes a limitation of one year, the complaint filed eight years after the marriage is barred by limitation. Rule 10 of the A. P. Dowry Prohibition rules, 1998 provides that any offence under Section 3 and 4 shall be filed before expiry of one year. It cannot, however be lost sight of that giving of property or valuable security at any time after the marriage also falls within the definition of "dowry" and any person who either takes or abets the taking of dowry or directly or indirectly demands dowry is liable to be punished for offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. From which date is this period of limitation of one year required to be computed is the question which would arise; for consideration. As held in Minu Kumari7, the High Court 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 produced before the Court and the issues involved are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without adequate material. The question whether the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are barred by limitation is a matter for the trial court to examine, in case a charge sheet is filed after completion of investigation, and not for this Court to examine in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Suffice to state that this is not one of the rarest of rare cases where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P. C. to stifle an investigation into the complaint. The judgment of the Apex Court, in Ruchi Agarwal1, was not a case under Section 482 Cr. P. C and as such has no application -
( 2 ) THE allegations in the complaint, filed on behalf of the complainant by her mother and power of attorney holder, are that the complainant is living in St. Kitts in the U. S. A. The 1st accused is her legally wedded husband and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th accused are the father, mother and brother respectively of the 1st accused. The complainant, though born in Kakinada, went away to the U. S. A. along with her parents and was brought up there. She later came down to India for her higher education and joined M. B. B. S. course in the Manipal Medical college in the year 1995. In May 1996, accused 1 to 4 approached the complainant, and her father (L. W-2), at the house of one Betina Setayamma (L. W-3)seeking marriage alliance of the complainant with the 1st accused, however, with the condition that the complainant and her parents should bear all the expenses of the 1st accused for his career and stay in the U. S. A. The accused are said to have asked the complainants father as to how much assets would be given by him to his daughter and it is only when the complainants father informed that the complainant had nearly 2 lakh U. S. dollars in her account, that the accused started marriage talks with the complainants father. The 2nd accused is alleged to have demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- as dowry for performing the marriage of the 1st accused with the complainant and to have also asked the complainants parents to bear the entire responsibility of the 1st accused from the date of the wedding, including expenditure towards his education in India, his VISA and other expenses to go to the United States of America for higher education and the entire expenditure for his travel, stay in the U. S. A. etc.
( 3 ) THE complainants parents agreed to bear all the expenses in the interest of their daughter anticipating a good future for her. All the accused had made the complainant believe that the 1st accused would look after her well and would live happily with her as husband and wife. The engagement, of the complainant and the 1st accused, took place at Kakinada in May, 1995. At that time the complainants parents also got the "lagna Patrika" imprinted of a six sovereign gold plate and gave it to the accused. The 2nd accused also collected rs. 50,000/- from the complainants father apart from dowry and at that time all the accused had promised, and had made the complainant believe, that the 1st accused would look after and live happily with her as husband and wife. Believing their words, the parents of the complainant agreed to spend the huge amount required for his stay in the U. S. A. to pursue his career. The marriage, between the complainant and the 1st accused, was solemnized on 19th December, 1996 at Ladies club Building, Kakinada. On the demand of the accused, the complainants fathers elder brother (L. W-4) paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the 2nd accused in the presence of L. Ws 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 and the same was recorded in a video cassette. The complainants parents gave a diamond ring to the 1st accused, apart from silver articles, and spent Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the marriage. The marriage was also registered with the Registrar of Marriages at kakinada. Ever since the beginning, the complainant found that the 1st accused was reluctant to live with her and was deliberately avoiding her company. The complainant was genuine in her approach towards the accused, and was trying to understand his feelings, but the 1st accused never tried to lead a normal married life with her. The 1st accused used to ask for money and the complainant had no othe
