IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used to quash proceedings where allegations prima facie constitute an offense.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”)seeking quash proceedings in C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the file learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 and husband of the de facto complainant/2nd respondent in the above C.C.No.380 of 2018. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant

3. The case of the 2nd respondent is that, the marriage of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was performed on 09.02.2000 at Sarada Kalyana Mandapam, Visakhapatnam as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs and they were blessed with male child in the year 2001. In the interregnum period, the 2nd respondent suffered with psychological problem and did not join the petitioner though the matter was placed before elders and thereafter both of them filed cases against one another before various courts. On 08.11.2015 at 09.00 hrs., the complainant lodged a report with the police against the petitioner alleging that in March-2015 the family court issued orders that Rs.10,000/- should be paid to the complainant and her son towards maintenance and the arrears of Rs.9,90,000/- as salary attachment. Though the petitioner works in the port trust, he did not wish to give the maintenance granted by the Court, but however, he promised to look after the respondent No.2 and her son in a good manner and that he will place them in a rented house. Believing the same, the respondent No.2 and her son went with the petitioner herein, but, the petitioner did not place them in a rented house as promised; instead kept them at the 2nd respondent”s parents house with a condition that she won”t approach the Court. On 05.11.2015, the petitioner took them to the petitioner”s house at Darapalem, Chinnagadhili Mandal. Immediately on the next day i.e. 06.11.2015, when the 2nd respondent questioned the petitioner about his attitude, she was beaten by the petitioner. Getting scared, the respondent No.2 went upstairs, pursuant to which the petitioner along with his mother pulled the respondent No.2 by catching her tuft and dragged her to the bedroom, where they have tried to kill the respondent No.2 by putting a pillow on her nose. After escaping from such an attempt, the 2nd respondent has dialed 100.

4. On receiving the said complaint, police registered the same vide Crime No.158/2015 on the file of Arilova Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed final report dated 30.11.2015 referring the said complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent as “false”. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent herein filed protest petition along with a private complaint before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and the same was registered as C.C.No.380 of 2018. The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the said C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the ground that the protest petition is not maintainable as the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent earlier was referred as “false” by the police.

5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 20.03.2019, this Court has passed the following interim order:

“…In the meantime, there shall be stay of all further proceedings.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations made in the earlier complaint as well as in the private complaint are totally false and fabricated as the petitioner and respondent No.2 are living separately. Further, 2nd respondent filed several cases one after other which amounts to cruelty therefore, the question of harassing the 2nd respondent does not arise. Earlier, during the course of investigation police recorded the statements of 5 witnesses and came to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner and referred the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent as