ORDER:

This criminal petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/ A7 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.25 of 2023 of Disha Police station, Vijayawada City.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is this:

The petitioner is the cousin of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant. The 2nd respondent gave a report to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada city, on 21.03.2023, alleging that her marriage with Vamsi Krishna/A1 was performed on 20.11.2021. After the marriage, she went to Valajapet in Tamilnadu where her husband was working to lead marital life. The petitioner herein, along with her parents, used to call her husband and instigate him to beat the de facto complainant every day and torture her physically, that her husband developed grudge against her and her parents and beat her severely and sent her away to Vijayawada. Several other allegations were mentioned in the report. The report was forwarded to the Disha Police Station, Vijayawada, on the basis of which a case in Crime No.25 of 2023 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 313, 354-A, 377, 506 IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section

67A, 67 of the IT Act.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A7 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.7 submitted that the petitioner was elsewhere at the time of occurrence of the alleged offence and that the petitioner is falsely implicated by making general, casual and omnibus allegations to implicate her in the case. He further submitted that the provisions of Sections 313, 354A and 377 IPC are not applicable and Sections 67A and 67 of the IT Act are not attracted in this case in so far as this petitioner is concerned and the rest of the provisions would fall within the scope of Section 41A CrPC. He further submitted that A.4 was given benefit of Section 41A Cr.P.C. vide order dated 11.04.2023 in Crl.P. No.2535 of 2023.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State submitted that though the provision of Sections 313 and 377 IPC are not attracted to the petitioner in this petition, it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR in Crime No.25 of 2023, in view of the other provisions.

6. Perused the record.

7. Though some sections noted above like 313, 377 etc are not obviously applicable to A7, and there is no common or joint liability shown, in view of the submissions made and the grounds urged in the petition, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the FIR as the matter needs a detailed trial for other offences which are attracted as against A7 and charges can be framed appropriately.

8. The material on record goes to show that there are specific accusations made against the petitioner and it is premature for this Court to conduct a roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested to dispose of the main petition itself with a direction to the police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A CrPC. Since the offences alleged relevant against the petitioner are covered by Section 41-A CrPC and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor represented that it would be followed, the police concerned are directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. scrupulously as per the guidelines laid down under Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another1.

9. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J

18.04.2023 BV