LexSONTI RAMA KRISHNA versus SONTI SHANTI SREE AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008) 16 S.C.R. 743
--t-
SONTI RAMA KRISHNA
A'
v.
SONTI SHANTI SREE AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1890 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 28, 2008
B
•
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND DR. MUKUNOAKAM
)":
SHARMA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s. 482- Proceeding,
for offence of uls. 306 /PC - High Court quashing the c
proceedings on the finding that ingredients of s.306 /PC not
applicable to the facts of the case - On appeal, held: Normally
threshold interference not permissible uls. 482 - However, in
the facts of the case, proceeding right by quashed - Penal
Code, 1860 - s. 306
D
...
Appellant filed a complaint with police, alleging that
~
his son (deceased) and respondent No. 1 were married.
On the next day of the nuptial i.e. 3.6.2004 at the house
of the accused, she openly insulted the deceased stating
E
that he was impotent and she did not accept the
marriage. The deceased had told his mother and sister
that the accused told him that she was not interested in
marrying an ugly person. On 5.6.2004, the deceased
'-.
returned to his native place. On 6.6.2004, the deceased
/
left his native place without informing anyone. On ,F
~
9.6.2004, the complainant received a message from police
station that the deceased had committed suicide.
Complainant alleged that the accused was responsible
for suicidal death of her husband.
G
.,
Respondent-accused field a petition uls 482 Cr.P.C .
~-
seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. High
Court quashed the proceedings finding that the
ingredients of s.306 IPC have no application to the facts
743
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORi6
{gQQ,8] 16 S.C.R.
,,,_ A of the case. Hence, the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Though, normally threshold interferenc;~
should not be made under Section 482. But, in th~
· B background of the instant case, no interference is called
tofwith the order pass~d by the High Court. The appellant
filed a complaint after·about two and a half months of the
alleged incident. Allegation was that the police did not
~
· 'r.e)gister a complaint. Initially on the basis of information
c'-:i'~o~g"~ci 1 e.nquiry in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C, was
co·tJ~
1ucted and the police started the proceedings. At
different points of time, different versions have been
given·~ In th_e first stage during invest_igation under
Section 174 Cr.P.C it was stated th~t the accused had
o come to the village with the deceased b1d .§Mbsequently,
stand was that the accused did not accompany the
deceased bet-ause the latter was bad and ugly looking.
There was no suicide note. Admittedly, marriage waa an
arranged one. -,, that is so, it is not believable that the
E deceased and the accused had not met. The alleged
grievance of the accused that the deceased was an ugly
man could not have been noticed after marriF1ge, for the
first time on 3.6.?004. The date of marriage was 29.5,20041
If is fairly well settled that words' uttered in a flt of anger
F or emotion without any intention cannot be termed -as
in!>Ugation. [Paras 10, 11 and 12) [748-G-H; 74~-A-C; E-F]
- , _. '· ,_ CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
J'":
.'i .. "
_, ,-;-,.:·1 ....
.,. No. ·1a90 of 2ooa.
G
From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.9.2006 of the
· Hjgh-'GourF-Of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Criminal Petition No. 3731 of 2005.
R. Nedumaran for the Appellant.
H
Shiv Kumar Suri and D. Bharathi Reddy for the
SONTI RAMA KRISHNA v. SONTI SHANTI SREE AND
. 745
ANR.
-->-
Respondents.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in thi~ appeal is to the order passed by a
B
learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
' .
allowing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
""
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The respondent
No. 1 filed a petition for quashing the prosecution against her
in PRC No. 1/05 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial, First · C
Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. The High Court by the
impugned order allowed the application qua'shing the
proceedings.
3. A complaint was filed by the appellant who is father of D
Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')
who was a highly qualified person and was employed in
4(
Kendriya Vidhyalaya at Machilipatnam. The allegations in the
~
complaint were that his marriage was performed with the
accused-respondent No. 1 on 29.5.2004 aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.