Sri D.seshayya

1

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI D. SESHAYYA

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Tuesday, this the 24 th day of March, 2020

Calendar Case No.522/2012

Between :

State represented by the Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

 And 

1. Bandarulanka Krupavathi @ Rupavathi, W/o Srinivasarao, aged 38 years, Kapu by caste, R/o near Pydithallammagudi, Railway Quarters, Kancharapalem, now residing at D.No.44­28­3/2, RailwayNewColony,ChakaliVeedhi, Visakhapatnam City. (died)

2. Bandaru Sai Sudhakar, S/o Acharya, aged 27 years, Viswabrahmin by caste, R/o Block No. B 74/690, Saligrampuram, Visakhapatnam.

3. Karredla Suresh, S/o Appalaraju, aged 21 years, Gavara bycaste, nearRailway Arch, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

(Case against A1 is abated) … Accused

This case is coming on 17­03­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for State and Sri. M. Manoj Kumar, Learned Counsel

for accused Nos. 2 & 3 and A1 died during pendency of present case and upon

hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

2

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP

JUDGMENT

The brief averments of the prosecution case are that A1 used her rented house bearing D.No. 44­28­3/2 situated at Chakali Veedhi, Railway New

Colony as brothel and procured the female from different places and engaged them in the business of prostitution and living on the earnings of prostitution.

A2 and A3 are the residents of different places in Visakhapatnam, they came to said brothel house. On reliable information, L.W.11/Inspector of Police, IV

Town P.S., obtained search warrant from Assistant Commissioner of Police,

East Sub­Division, Visakhapatnam on 02.03.2012 and rushed to the house of

A1 along with his staff and the mediators and conducted raid over the house of

A1 and arrested all accused, before that A2 gave an amount of Rs.500/­ to A1 to have sex with the female sex workers. When L.W.11 questioned A1 in the presence of mediators, A1 admitted that she is using her rented house as brothel by procuring women for the purpose of prostitution and living on the earnings of prostitution. L.W.11 seized Rs.250/­ and 4 Nirodh scahets from A1 and seized Rs.250/­ from A2 and also seized one Nirodh sachet from L.W.4/B.

Manga who was found in the bed room along with A2 in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators report drafted from 16.00 hours to 17.00 hours on 02.03.2012, thereafter affecting arrest of the accused at 17.00 hours.

L.W.11 rescued five victims from the hands of A1 and sent them to Pragathi

Charitable Trust through Court for safe custody till the arrival of their parents/guardians. Basing on the mediators report, L.W.11/Inspector of

Police, IV Town Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.97/2012 under sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of I.T.P Act on 02.03.2012 at 17.30 hours and investigated into. During the course of investigation, L.W.11/Inspector of Police, IV Town

P.S., inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the 3

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. After completion of investigation, L.W.11/Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused.

2. The case was taken on file for the charged offences U/Secs. 3, 4, 5 & 7 of

I.T.P Act against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. 

3.After the accused Nos. 2 & 3 made their appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused Nos. 2 & 3 are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the charged offences punishable U/Secs. 3, 4, 5 & 7 of I.T.P Act for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

5. The prosecution to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P5 and M.Os 1 to 4.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos. 2 & 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused Nos. 2 & 3 for

the charged offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of I.T.P 

Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not” ?

P O I N T:

9.P.W.1 is owner of house bearing D.No. 44­28­3/2 consisting of ground and first floor situated at Chakalipeta, Railway New Colony. They are residing in the first floor and ground floor was given to rent, in the year 2012, one

Krupavathi (A1) and another person approached him for rent, accordingly he gave said portion for rent @ Rs.5,500/­ per month. Within two months, the police came to his house and arrested A1 as she is doing prostitution. He cannot identify another person who came along with A1.

4

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP

10.P.W.2 is neighbour to the scene of offence, but he did not support the version of prosecution case and turned hostile.

11.P.W.3 is an independent mediator. As per his evidence, on 02.03.2012 he went to police station on his personal work, on that police obtained his signature on the written form in the police station and finally he turned hostile.

12.P.W.4 is an Investigation Officer. As per his evidence, on 02.03.2012 at about morning time, he received credible information with regard to illegal activities by running brothel at Railway New Colony at D.No. 44­28­3/2,

Chakali Veedhi. Then he obtained search warrant from A.C.P to proceed towards Chakali Veedhi along with men and women constables and mediators

P.W.3 and L.W.9/B. Sanjeeva Naidu to the house of A1 and found A1 there, on suspicion he interrogated and she revealed that she is doing prostitution. He also noticed one female along with A2 in one room, he also detained them and interrogated them. They also noticed one male member who is A3 and four female persons in another room i.e., victims L.W.4/B. Manga, L.W.5/Ch.

Suseela, L.W.6/G. Durga, L.W.7/B. Maheswari and L.W.8/P. Chinni. He seized Rs.250/­ and four sachets of condoms from A1 covered under M.Os. 1 & 3, also seized Rs.250/­ from A2 covered under M.O.2 and also seized one

Nirodh packet from L.W.4/B. Manga covered under M.O.4. Then he arrested

A1 to A3 and brought all accused and victims to Police Station. Basing on the mediators report, a case in Cr.No. 97/2012 for the offences under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of I.T.P. Act was registered. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence and also recorded the statements of P.Ws 1 & 2 and L.W.3. Later he returned to police station and recorded the statements of L.Ws 4 to 8 and forwarded all accused to judicial custody. All victims were sent to Pragathi 5

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP

Charitable Trust. After completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the accused.

13.As per contention of the prosecution, A1 is practicing prostitution at the house of P.W.1 situated at Chakali Veedhi, Railway New Colony bearing D.No.

44­28­3/2 and by receiving credible information, P.W.4 the Investigation Officer who rushed to the scene of offence and found A1 for first instance, later he found A2 & A3 along with victim girls L.Ws 4 to 8, later he seized cash from the possession of A1 & A2 and Nirodh packets covered under M.Os 1 to 4, cash of

Rs.250/­ and four sachets of condoms from A1, Rs.250/­ from A2 and also one

Nirodh packet from L.W.4/B. Manga.

14.In order to support the contention of prosecution case though P.Ws 2 & 3 turned hostile is not a ground to discard the version of prosecution case. P.W.1 categorically admitted that he let out his house to A1 who is running brothel with the help of L.Ws 4 to 8 through A2 & A3. The Investigation Officer P.W.4 categorically supported the version of prosecution case with regard to arrest and seizure of Material Objects from the possession of accused on 02.03.2012.

Therefore, the prosecution proved the case against the accused, hence accused are liable for conviction.

15.Learned Counsel for defence argued that whether there is any incriminating evidence available on record and is it sufficient to convict the accused. P.W.1 is owner of the house bearing No. 44­28­3/2, Chakali Veedhi,

Railway New Colony, but he did not speak any incriminating evidence against

A2 & A3 because he let out his house to A1, she is no more and died during the pendency of present case. Therefore, he let out house to A1 thereafter A1 run illegal activities with the help of victims L.Ws 4 to 8. Therefore, there is no 6

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP evidence against A2 & A3 and there must be evidence with regard to participation with L.Ws 4 to 8, on that they caught red handed by police, in absence of such evidence P.W.1 let out house to A1 and there A1 run brothel with A2 & A3 is not tenable, such evidence cannot be taken into consideration, and it is not sufficient to convict the accused.

16.Learned defence Counsel argued that P.W.2 is neighbour to the scene of offence situated at Chakali Veedhi, Railway New Colony, but he did not support the version of prosecution case. On the other hand L.Ws 4 to 8 are main witnesses and they are only victim girls who participated on that day. Even according to Investigation Officer, they are the victims who locked at the hands of accused at the time of visit of scene of offence and caught red handedly by

Investigation Officer. A1 is running brothel house through A2 & A3 and prostitution is going on. In this case, several opportunities have given to produce L.Ws 4 to 8, but they were not produced by prosecution, they are victims in this case, finally their evidence was closed by filing V.R reports. It is clearly shows that non production of L.Ws 4 to 8 is fatal to the prosecution case because they are real persons to speak about participation of illegal activities in rented house of A1 on that day, therefore it is clearly shows that non production of victim witnesses who are L.Ws 4 to 8 is a great lacuna to the prosecution case in attracting Sections 3,4,5 & 7 of I.T.P. Act.

17.Learned Counsel for defence argued that in this case the prosecution examined mediator who was alleged to be present at the time of incident, at the time of seizure of M.Os 1 to 4 from the possession of A1 & A2 and L.W.4/B.

Manga. The prosecution must establish the fact through inhabitant mediators.

The Investigation Officer shall follow 100 (4) of Cr.P.C when it is closed place 7

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP visited, the Investigation Officer has to follow 100 (4) Cr.P.C. In this case P.W.3 was shown as mediator, but he did not support the version of prosecution case.

Moreover, he is a stock mediator to the Dwaraka and IV Town P.S and deposed evidence more than 100 cases, in such circumstances, the Investigation Officer has to secure the inhabitant persons to establish real facts through independent witnesses when the Investigation Officer failed to secure such mediators, it cannot be taken into consideration. It is well settled principle of law if any property was seized by the police, such property must be proved by the prosecution to show that it is invariably recovered from the possession of accused at their confession statements and the prosecution also fulfill the conditions prescribed under section 100 (4) Cr.P.C to secure inhabitant local persons to show that case property was duly recovered from the possession of accused at their confessional statements, otherwise it should be treated as planted for the purpose of present case. The said fact was decided by Hon’ble

APEX Court in a decision reported in S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of AP 2010 (1) ALT Criminal 32 AP. As per ratio, the Hon’ble APEX Court clearly discussed that the Investigation Officer has to follow the procedure, in closed premises, he has to follow the rules and regulations as contemplated under section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C and secure inhabitant persons to act as mediators to prove the arrest and seizure. In this case though P.W.3 appeared before the

Court to give evidence, but he did not support the version of prosecution case.

Moreover he is not resident of Railway New Colony. Therefore, it is clearly shows that a false case was foisted against the accused, there is no truth in the evidence of P.W.4 with regard to seizure of material objects from the possession of accused and also L.W.4/B. Manga.

8

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP

18.Learned Counsel for defence argued that present case is foisted against accused for statistical purpose, except that there is no truth in the evidence of prosecution case. If at all the contention of prosecution is true, the prosecution must have to produce L.Ws 4 to 8 and also produce independent witnesses who are present in the house of P.W.1 or in the surrounding houses of P.W.1. In this case there is no such evidence adduced, though P.W.2 was produced by prosecution as neighbour, but he did not support the version of prosecution.

Therefore, sole testimony of Investigation Officer is not sufficient to convict the accused unless and until other evidence is corroborated the version of prosecution case. The said fact was decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in 2006 (1) ALT page 11. As per ratio, the Hon'ble Apex

Court clearly discussed no accused shall be convicted on the sole testimony of

Investigation Officer, unless there is a corroboration of other independent evidence about genesis of occurrence. As per ratio, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly discussed no accused shall be convicted basing on the sole testimony of

Investigation officer. Even according to the contention of P.W.1, he only let out house to A1 and A1 died during pendency of case with regard to presence of A2 & A3 there is no incriminating evidence much less P.W.3 is a mediator to the arrest of A1 to A3 and seizure of material objects, but he did not support the version of prosecution case. Therefore only Investigation Officer evidence is available with regard to genesis of occurrence, but the evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused. Moreover, the Investigation Officer failed to follow the procedure contemplated under section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C with regard to arrest of the accused and seizure to prove the offence and bring the guilty of accused.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case against accused. Hence, accused Nos 2 & 3 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

9

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP

19.By considering the facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the case against accused Nos. 2 & 3 beyond all reasonable doubt, hence accused Nos. 2 & 3 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

20.In the result, accused Nos. 2 & 3 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of I.T.P Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos. 2 & 3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated the provisions U/sec.437­A CrPC. M.Os.1 & 2 i.e., cash of Rs.500/­ shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period. M.Os.3 & 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of March, 2020.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

P.W.1 : A. Narasinga Rao NIL P.W.2 : Md. Sabir P.W.3 : V. Suryanarayana Murthy P.W.4 : P.M. Naidu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.2 : Signature of P.W.3 in Mediators Report dated 02.03.2012 Ex.P.3 : Mediators Report/Seizure Panchanama dated 02.03.2012 Ex.P.4 : First Information Report Ex.P.5 : Rough Sketch 10

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP

For Defence

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Cash of Rs.250/­ seized from A1 M.O.2: Cash of Rs.250/­ seized from A2 M.O.3: Four Nirodh sachets seized from A1 M.O.4: One Nirodh sachet seized from L.W.4

I ACMM/VSP.

11

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 522/2012

DATE OF

Commen­Sentence ApprehensionRelease Close of OffenceFilingcement ofor of Accusedon BailTrial Trial Order 01020304050607 02.03.1204.06.1203.03.201203.03.201210.07.1928.02.2024.03.20

Complainant: Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name and description of accused:

1. Bandarulanka Krupavathi @ Rupavathi, W/o Srinivasarao, aged 38 years, Kapu by caste, R/o near Pydithallammagudi, Railway Quarters, Kancharapalem, now residing at D.No.44­28­3/2, RailwayNewColony,ChakaliVeedhi, Visakhapatnam City. (died)

2. Bandaru Sai Sudhakar, S/o Acharya, aged 27 years, Viswabrahmin by caste, R/o Block No. B 74/690, Saligrampuram, Visakhapatnam.

3. Karredla Suresh, S/o Appalaraju, aged 21 years, Gavara bycaste, nearRailway Arch, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

(Case against A1 is abated)

Offence: U/Sec. 3 of I.T.P. Act – Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel, Sec 4 of I.T.P. Act – Punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution, Section 5 of I.T.P. Act – Procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution, Section 7 of I.T.P. Act – Prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places

Finding: Accused Nos. 2 & 3 are found not guilty.

Result: In the result, accused Nos. 2 & 3 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of I.T.P Act and accordingly 12

CC 522/2012

I ACMMC/VSP they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos. 2 & 3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated the provisions U/sec.437­A CrPC. M.Os.1 & 2 i.e., cash of Rs.500/­ shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period. M.Os.3 & 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Explanation for delay and remarks:

The prosecution did not produce the witnesses by time to time, hence the delay occurred and no witness was detained beyond three days.

This case was taken on file against all accused for the charged offences punishable U/Secs. 3, 4, 5 & 7 of I.T.P. Act on 01.08.2012. Copies of the documents furnished to accused Nos. 2 & 3 on 18.04.2019. Accused Nos. 2 & 3 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Secs. 3, 4, 5 & 7 of I.T.P. Act against them on 16.05.2019. P.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. P.W.2 was examined and got marked Ex.P1. P.W.3 was examined and got marked Ex.P2. P.W.4 was examined and got marked

Exs.P3 to P5 and M.Os 1 to 4. After closure of prosecution evidence, on 17.03.2020 the accused Nos. 2 & 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence levelled against them and reported no defence evidence. Heard both sides arguments on 17.03.2020. On 24.03.2020

Judgment has been pronounced. Hence the delay.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present:­ Sri D. Seshayya,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 23 rd day of March, 2020

Crl.M.P.No.4766/2018

in

DVC 30/2017

Between:­ Guruju Chaitanya, W/o Anshuman Rajanala, D/o G. Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, aged 31 years, D.No. 50­99­5A, Ground Floor, TPT Colony, near Vivekananda Park, Behind SFS School, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

.... Petitioner

AND:­

Dr. Anshuman Rajanala, S/o Rameshwar Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years, Ward No.08, Patrapara Santosh Nagar, Dharamjaigarh, Raigarh, Chattisgarh.

..... 1 st Respondent

This petition coming on 02.03.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. M. Ravi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and of Sri. M.K. Sitaramayya &

Sri. M.K. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent and having stood over till this day for consideration and this court made the following:

O R D E R

1) This petition is filed under Section 23 of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 praying the Court to direct the 1st respondent to pay

Rs. 50,000/­ to the petitioner per month towards interim maintenance.

2)The brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the petition are that, the marriage of petitioner and 1st respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and caste customs on 14.12.2014. At the time of marriage, her parents gave

Rs.15,00,000/­ towards dowry, 8 tulas gold and 10 Kgs silver besides 25 tulas gold to petitioner. At the time of marriage, they also demanded additional 2 amount of Rs.2,00,000/­, otherwise threatened to stop the marriage and thereafter her brother paid Rs.2,00,000/­ through HDFC cheque dated 11.12.2014. From the date of marriage itself, all the respondents harassed her physically and mentally and she bore all the harassment, ill­treatment at the hands of respondents. Due to unbearable harassment at the hands of respondents, she was constrained to stay at her parents’ house. The 1st respondent is a P.G Doctor and he worked as a Doctor from 2005 to 2011 by running a clinic, later applied for P.G and worked as Rasatantra Baisadya

Kalpana Department at Sri Satyasai Muralidhar Ayurvedic College and earning

Rs.1,00,000/­ per month and also having movable and immovable properties and getting Rs.3,00,000/­ from the properties and she is also working as a Doctor and getting Rs.15,000/­ only. Hence, the petitioner filed the petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and praying the Court to direct the 1st respondent to pay Rs. 50,000/­ to the petitioner per month towards interim maintenance.

3)Per contra, the 1st respondent has filed the counter stating that all the main and material allegations made in the petition are not true and correct, valid and binding on the respondents and the petition is not maintainable under law and all the petition allegations made in the petition are denied line by line and word by word except such of them which are specifically admitted herein i.e., the marriage of petitioner and 1st respondent etc.

4)The gist of the counter is that, what are the allegations mentioned in the petition are not true and correct, they are invented for the purpose of the present petition, except the relationship between the petitioner and 1st respondent. There is no documentary evidence to show that the 1st respondent is getting

Rs.1,00,000/­ per month as salary besides having properties and on the other 3 hand, the present petition is not maintainable because the marriage of petitioner and 1st respondent was dissolved by Hon’ble Family Court, Rayagada vide F36­

A/2017 dated 10.10.2017. But the petitioner suppressed the fact and filed a false case against respondents, therefore there is no such marital relationship between them. On the other hand, there is no iota of evidence to show that 1st respondent is working an employee and getting Rs.1,00,000/­ per month besides that also having Rs.50,00,000/­ worth property and earning Rs.3,00,000/­ on it. On the other hand, the petitioner is working as temporary Doctor on contract basis cannot be taken into consideration and to prove that fact, the petitioner has to file salary certificate, more over there is no marital relationship between both parties, much less the petitioner is also a qualified Doctor and getting Rs.50,000/­ per month, but not Rs.15,000/­. Moreover, the petitioner also filed divorce petition.

Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 

5)On behalf of the petitioner and 1st respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 

6)Heard both sides.

7)The point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for Rs.50,000/­ per month towards interim maintenance till disposal of the main petition as prayed for ?

8)Point: 

The brief contention of the petitioner is that she is legally wedded wife of respondent and the marriage of petitioner and 1st respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and caste customs on 14.12.2014. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.15,00,000/­ towards dowry, 8 tulas gold and 10 Kgs silver besides 25 tulas gold to petitioner. At the time of marriage, they also demanded

additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/­, otherwise threatened to stop the marriage

and thereafter her brother paid Rs.2,00,000/­ through HDFC cheque dated 4 11.12.2014. From the date of marriage itself, all the respondents harassed her physically and mentally and she bore all the harassment, ill­treatment at the hands of respondents. Due to unbearable harassment at the hands of respondents, she was constrained to stay at her parents’ house. The 1st respondent is a P.G Doctor and he worked as a Doctor from 2005 to 2011 by running a clinic, later applied for P.G and worked as Rasatantra Baisadya

Kalpana Department at Sri Satyasai Muralidhar Ayurvedic College and earning

Rs.1,00,000/­ per month and also having movable and immovable properties and getting Rs.3,00,000/­ from the properties and she is also working as a Doctor and getting Rs.15,000/­ only, hence, the present petition is filed for granting maintenance @ Rs.50,000/­ per month.

9)Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no dispute with regard to marital relationship between petitioner and 1st respondent though she is working as an employee and getting Rs.15,000/­ is not a ground to discard the contention of petitioner because she stayed at her parents’ house due to the acts of 1st respondent, therefore, the claim of the 1st respondent can be considered.

10)Learned Counsel for 1st respondent argued that what are the allegations mentioned in the petition are not true and correct and they are invented for the purpose of present petition. There is no documentary evidence to show that the 1st respondent is getting Rs.1,00,000/­ per month as salary besides having properties and on the other hand, the present petition is not maintainable because the marriage of petitioner and 1st respondent was dissolved by Hon’ble

Family Court, Rayagada vide F36­A/2017 dated 10.10.2017. But the petitioner suppressed the fact and filed a false case against respondents, therefore there is no such marital relationship between them. On the other hand, there is no iota of evidence to show that 1st respondent is working an employee and getting

Rs.1,00,000/­ per month besides that also having Rs.50,00,000/­ worth property 5 and earning Rs.3,00,000/­ on it. On the other hand, the petitioner is working as temporary Doctor on contract basis cannot be taken into consideration and to prove that fact, the petitioner has to file salary certificate, more over there is no marital relationship between both parties, much less the petitioner is also a qualified Doctor and getting Rs.50,000/­ per month, but not Rs.15,000/­.

Moreover, the petitioner also filed divorce petition. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. But the contention of 1st respondent is not tenable, even divorced wife also can entitle maintenance. On the other hand, it is only ex­ parte decree, the petitioner has no knowledge about divorce and the 1st respondent obtained ex­parte divorce, much less there is no document produced by 1st respondent to show that present income of petitioner, in such circumstances adverse inference can be drawn. The 1st respondent is having sufficient means to provide separate maintenance. It is not the case that 1st respondent filed section 9 petition for restitution of conjugal rights, thereby she is not entitled to maintenance. On the other hand, even divorced wife also entitled maintenance unless and until she remarried anyone. Said fact was decided by

Hon’ble APEX Court in its decision reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 945.

As per ratio, the Hon’ble APEX Court clearly discussed that wife included divorce wife can also entitled the maintenance unless and until she remarried anyone.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interim maintenance against 1st respondent.

11)The 1st respondent argued that the petitioner is working as a Doctor and getting Rs.50,000/­ per month, in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance. Mere fact that the petitioner is a qualified person working as a Doctor is not a ground to discard the version of petitioner’s case because educated person, earning member also entitled maintenance and the said fact was decided by Hon’ble APEX Court in Sunita Kachwaha and Others Vs 6

Anil Kachwaha 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 484 Supreme Court. As per ratio laid down, though the petitioner got sufficient means and earning capacity, however it is not a ground to discard the claim of the petitioner. In this case petitioner is a qualified person and earning Rs.15,000/­ is not a ground to discard the claim of the petitioner because the 1st respondent is P.G graduate working as a qualified

Doctor earning Rs.1,00,000/­ per month, in such circumstances, claim of the petitioner should be considered. Regarding other rival contentions of both parties should be considered during the course of regular enquiry by adducing oral or documentary evidence on merits. Therefore, at this juncture, the claim of the petitioner with regard to maintenance should be considered.

12)In the result, the petition is partly allowed by granting Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees

Ten Thousand only) to the petitioner per month towards interim maintenance from the date of order only. The 1st respondent shall deposit the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/­ in the bank account of petitioner on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The petitioner is hereby directed to furnish the bank account details by way of filing memo before this court i.e., after giving notice to the other side.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23 rd day of March, 2020.

 xx Sd/­ Sri D. Seshayya, I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

xx Sd/­ Sri D. Seshayya, I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. //true copy//

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam.

1

CC 850/2015

I ACMMC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI D. SESHAYYA

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Thursday, this the 28 th day of May, 2020

Calendar Case No.850/2015

Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

And

1. Atchi Kesava Reddy, S/o Bhagavan Reddy, aged 33 years, Reddy by caste, R/o D.No. 53-16-22/1, Atchivari Veedhi, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam City.

2. Atchi Bhagavan Reddy, Reddy by caste, R/o D.No. 53-16-22/1, Atchivari Veedhi, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam City.

3. Atchi Varalakshmi, W/o Bhagavan Reddy, Reddy by caste, R/o D.No. 53-16-22/1, Atchivari Veedhi, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam City.

… Accused

This case is coming on 26-05-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for state and Sri. K. Maheswara Rao, Learned

Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The brief averments of the prosecution case are that the marriage of

L.W.1/Atchi Rajeswari was performed with accused No.1 on 12.12.2013 at

Veera Brahmendra Swamy Kalyana Mandapam, Isukathota, Visakhapatnam in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, her parents gave

Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry, Rs.50,000/- towards motorcycle, ½ tula gold, 2

CC 850/2015

I ACMMC/VSP

Rs.50,000/- worth sare samans and wrist watch. By that time, accused was working in M.R.F Tyres Company, Isukathota. After marriage, she joined with accused No.1 in joint family and all accused treated her well for one week.

After one week, all accused along with her sister-in-law demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- for purchasing bike and gold. All accused harassed her both physically and mentally by ill-treating her as servant maid. L.W.1 informed the same to A1, but he also supported the acts of A2 & A3. The accused harassed her by not providing proper food and not permitted to go to her parents’ house. Thereafter she informed the same to her parents, on that her parents came to her in-laws house and asked about their harassment thereby all accused necked out her parents from their house. The accused taken away her cellphone. On 14.11.2014 midnight All accused harassed her and also tried to kill her. When L.W.1 informed her parents about the harassment of the accused, her parents came to her in- laws house and took her to their house. Thereafter L.W.1 lodged a police report. Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.7/Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police,

Women P.S., registered a case in Cr.No. 77/2015 for the offences under section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, L.W.7 inspected the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, recorded their detailed statements. Thereafter L.W.7/Asst.

Sub-Inspector of Police arrested A1 on 16.06.2015 at 11.30 hours and served 41-A Cr.P.C notices to accused Nos. 2 & 3. There is no prima facie established against A4, hence her name was deleted as per procedure. After verification of investigation, L.W.8/Sub-Inspector of Police, Women P.S., filed the charge sheet against the accused.

2. The case was taken on file for the charged offences U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act against the accused.

3

CC 850/2015

I ACMMC/VSP

3.After the accused Nos. 1 to 3 made their appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

4. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the charged offences punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution though cited 8 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The remaining evidence has been given up by APP.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence leveled against them and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the charged offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and

Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubt or

not” ?

P O I N T:

9.P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant in this case. As per her evidence, the marriage of herself and accused No.1 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and caste customs on 12.12.2013 at Veera Brahmendra Swamy Kalyana

Mandapam, Visakhapatnam in the presence of elders. Herself and accused

No.1 lived together happily for one year. Due to petty disputes and obvious reasons between herself and accused No.1, she left the company of accused

No.1 in the month of May, 2017. In this connection, the police obtained her signature on the written form. She does not remember the contents of report

dated 11.05.2015. The signature is marked as Ex.P1. The police never

examined her. Accused never harassed her physically and mentally for want 4

CC 850/2015

I ACMMC/VSP of additional dowry. She received an amount Rs.5,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. Herself and A1 intends to take mutual divorce vide

FCOP No. 1953/2019 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Family Court,

Visakhapatnam.

10.P.W.2 is father of P.W.1. As per his evidence, the marriage of P.W.1 and accused No.1 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and caste customs on 12.12.2013 at Veera Brahmendra Swamy Kalyana Mandapam,

Visakhapatnam in the presence of elders. P.W.1 and accused No.1 lived together happily for one year. Due to petty disputes and obvious reasons between P.W.1 and accused No.1, she left the company of accused No.1 in the month of May, 2017. The police never examined him. Accused never harassed P.W.1 physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. P.W.1 received an amount Rs.5,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. PW.1 and A1 intends to take mutual divorce vide FCOP No. 1953/2019 on the file of

Hon’ble Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

11.On perusing the cross examination of P.Ws.1 & 2, there is no incriminating material elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 & 2. They did not support the version of the prosecution case and had completely turned hostile to the prosecution case. Nothing was elicited against the accused in the cross examination of P.Ws.1 & 2. There is no other evidence to show that accused Nos. 1 to 3 are responsible for ill-treatment and harassment both mentally and physically towards P.W.1. Therefore, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant in this case had completely turned hostile. In the above circumstances, there is no iota of evidence on behalf of prosecution to show that P.W.1 was subjected to harassment by all accused both mentally and physically. Therefore, there is no ample evidence on behalf of prosecution 5

CC 850/2015

I ACMMC/VSP for the charged offences. In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence against accused to prove their guilty for the charged offences. Hence, accused Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal for the charged offences.

12.In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of May, 2020.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

P.W.1 : Atchi Rajeswari -NIL- P.W.2 : P. Rama Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report dated 11.05.2015. Ex.P.2 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.2.

For Defence

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

I ACMM/VSP.

6

CC 850/2015

I ACMMC/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 850/2015

DATE OF

CommenSentence ApprehensionRelease Close of OffenceFilingcementor of Accusedon BailTrial of Trial Order 01020304050607

Prior to24.07.116.06.201523.06.201518.03.2018.03.2028.05.20 11.05.155

Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women P.S., Visakhapatnam City.

Name and description of accused:

1. Atchi Kesava Reddy, S/o Bhagavan Reddy, aged 33 years, Reddy by caste, R/o D.No. 53-16-22/1, Atchivari Veedhi, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam City.

2. Atchi Bhagavan Reddy, Reddy by caste, R/o D.No. 53-16-22/1, Atchivari Veedhi, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam City.

3. Atchi Varalakshmi, W/o Bhagavan Reddy, Reddy by caste, R/o D.No. 53-16-22/1, Atchivari Veedhi, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam City.

Offence: U/Sec. 498-A IPC – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, Section 3 of D.P. Act – Penalty for giving or taking dowry, Section 4 of D.P. Act – Penalty for demanding dowry

Finding: Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty

Result: In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

7

CC 850/2015

I ACMMC/VSP

Explanation for delay and remarks: The prosecution did not produce the witnesses by time to time, hence the delay occurred and no witness was detained beyond three days.

This case was taken on file against accused for the charged offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act on 27.07.2015.

Copies of the documents furnished to accused on 14.10.2015. Accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C for the charged offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A

I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act against him on 04.03.2020. P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Heard both sides arguments on 26.05.2020. On 28.05.2020 Judgment has been pronounced. Hence the delay.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1

CC 1172/2016

I ACMMC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI D. SESHAYYA

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Thursday, this the 28 thday of May, 2020

Calendar Case No.1172/2016

Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S., Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

And

Potnuru Rajesh, S/o Rajarao, aged 22 years, SC Madiga, Coolie works (Marbel works), R/o D.No.6-3, Ramachandra Nagar, Saibaba Temple Area, Gajuwaka.

… Accused

This case coming on 26-05-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for State and Sri. B. Ramesh, Learned

Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The present case was numbered as C.C.No.36/2015 on the file of III

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Gajuwaka was transferred

to this Court and renumbered as CC 1172/2016.

The brief averments of the prosecution case are that L.W.1/Kutikuppala

Sravani came from Srikakulam District along with her family and residing at

Rickshaw colony, Pedagantyada Mandal in a rented house since 6 months prior to the incident. L.W.2/K. Balakrishna who is husband of L.W.1 was doing labour works. L.W.1 had two children viz., one son by name Poorna Rao and 2

CC 1172/2016

I ACMMC/VSP one daughter by name Tulasi. L.W.1 used to send her daughter Tulasi to

Anganwadi centre at Ramachandra Nagar. As usual on 23.08.2014 morning at 9.30 hours, L.W.1 dropped her daughter at Anganwadi centre and when she went to Anganwadi centre in the afternoon to pick up her daughter, her daughter was found missing and only two boys were playing there. On enquiry, she came to know that the accused who is son of Aaya had taken away/kidnapped the daughter of L.W.1 and confined her in his house for two hours. Later L.Ws.3 to 5 informed that they heard the cries of Tulasi from the house of accused and when she banged the doors of accused, the accused threw away Tulasi from the house and escaped from there. Immediately

L.W.1 informed to local elders and thereafter lodged a police report. On the basis of report given by L.W.1, a case in Cr.No.541/2014 under sections 363 & 342 IPC of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City was registered by

L.W.8/Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S., and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW.8 inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and arrested the accused on 24.08.2014 at 14.30 hours near Jaggu Junction and send him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, L.W.8/Sub-

Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused.

2. The case was taken on file for the charged offences U/Secs.363 & 342 of IPC against the accused.

3.After the accused made his appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused is examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the charged offences punishable U/Secs.363 & 342 of IPC for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

CC 1172/2016

I ACMMC/VSP

5. The prosecution though cited 8 witnesses in the charge sheet but examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The remaining evidence has been given up by APP.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence leveled against him and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the charged offences punishable U/Secs.363 & 342 of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt or not” ?

P O I N T:

9. P.W.1 is mother of victim girl Tulasi. As per her evidence, P.W.1 used to drop her daughter at Anganwadi Centre, Ramachandra Nagar daily. While so on 23.08.2014 at about 9.30 A.M., she dropped her daughter at

Anganwadi centre and visited the same at 3.30 P.M., by that time her daughter was found missing. Immediately herself and P.W.2 searched for their daughter in and around of their area, but in vain. Due to apprehension, they approached police. In this connection, the police obtained her L.T.M., on the written form. She does not remember the contents of report dated 24.08.2014. The L.T.M is marked as Ex.P1. Later she found her daughter in the neighbour’s house next day evening. The police never examined her.

Accused never kidnapped her daughter at any point of time. Herself and accused are settled the matter outside of the Court.

10. P.W.2 is father of victim girl Tulasi. As per his evidence, P.W.1 used to drop their daughter at Anganwadi Centre, Ramachandra Nagar daily. While so on 23.08.2014 at about 9.30 A.M., P.W.1 dropped their daughter at 4

CC 1172/2016

I ACMMC/VSP

Anganwadi centre and visited the same at 3.30 P.M., by that time his daughter was found missing. Immediately himself and P.W.1 searched for their daughter in and around of their area, but in vain. Due to apprehension, they approached police. Later they found their daughter in the neighbour’s house next day evening. The police never examined him. Accused never kidnapped his daughter at any point of time. Themselves and accused are settled the matter outside of the Court.

11.On perusing the cross examination of P.Ws.1 & 2, there is no incriminating material elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 & 2. They did not support the version of the prosecution case and had completely turned hostile to the prosecution case. Nothing was elicited against the accused in the cross examination of P.Ws.1 & 2. There is no other evidence to show that accused is responsible for kidnapping of daughter of P.Ws. 1 & 2 from

Anganwadi Centre and confined her in his house. Therefore, P.Ws.1 & 2 are complainants in this case had completely turned hostile. In the above circumstances, there is no iota of evidence on behalf of prosecution to show that daughter of P.Ws. 1 & 2 was kidnapped by accused and confined her in his house. Therefore, there is no ample evidence on behalf of prosecution for the charged offences. In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence against accused to prove his guilty for the charged offences. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal for the charged offences.

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charged offences punishable U/Secs. 363 & 342 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248 5

CC 1172/2016

I ACMMC/VSP (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of May, 2020.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

P.W.1 : K. Sravani -NIL- P.W.2 : K. Bala Krishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : L.T.M. of PW.1 on report dt.24.08.2014. Ex.P.2 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3 :U/sec 161 CrPC statement of PW.2.

For Defence

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

I ACMM/VSP.

6

CC 1172/2016

I ACMMC/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

C.C.No. 1172/2016

DATE OF

Commen-Sentence ApprehensionRelease Close of OffenceFilingcement ofor of Accusedon BailTrial Trial Order 01020304050607 24.08.14 01.10.1424.08.201426.08.201418.03.2018.03.2028.05.20

Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S., Visakhapatnam City.

Name and description of accused:

Potnuru Rajesh, S/o Rajarao, aged 22 years, SC Madiga, Coolie works (Marbel works), R/o D.No.6-3, Ramachandra Nagar, Saibaba Temple Area, Gajuwaka.

Offence: U/Sec. 363 of IPC - Punishment for kidnapping & 342 IPC –

Punishment for wrongful confinement

Finding: Accused is found not guilty

Result: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charged offences punishable U/Secs. 363 & 342 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Explanation for delay and remarks: The prosecution did not produce the witnesses by time to time, hence the delay occurred and no witness was detained beyond three days. This case was taken on file against accused for the charged offences punishable U/Secs. 363 & 342 of IPC on 31.01.2016. Copies of the documents furnished to accused on 11.03.2020. Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Secs.363 & 342 of IPC against him on 18.03.2020. P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Heard both sides arguments on 26.05.2020. On 28.05.2020 Judgment has been pronounced. Hence the delay.

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present:­ Sri D. Seshayya,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 24 th DAY OF MARCH, 2020

Crl.M.P.No.1304/2020 IN C.C.No.132/2018

Between:

Challakonda Raghuram Prasad, S/o CVLV Prasada Rao, Hindu, aged 68 years, residing at D.No.43­36­12, Railway Station Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

…Petitioner/Accused No.1 And: The State represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on 17­03­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Sk. Shareef, Learned Counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 and Learned A.P.P Grade­II for the respondent/complainant and the same having stood over for consideration and this Court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

1.The present petition is filed by the petitioner/A1 under section 10 (f) of Passport

Act 1967 with a plea to give direction to Passport Authority to handover his passport and enable him to go to abroad and return to India to appear before the Court from time to time to proceed with trial.

2.As per contention of the petitioner, he was shown as accused No.1 in this case for the offence under section 304­A IPC and the matter is posted to 23.04.2020. The petitioner possessed valid passport bearing No. Z4671676 and the same was surrendered

before Passport Authorities for renewal and at the time of renewal said passport was

detained with Passport Authority. Unless and until passport is released to him, there is no possibility to go to U.S.A to perform his daughter’s marriage within a stipulated span of minimum of 6 months, he will assure that he will attend before the Court and proceed with the case. In order to support the contention of petitioner, he produced a letter issued by Regional Passport Authorities with a direction to get no objection certificate 2 from Court, then only it will release his passport as per circular GN GSR 570 E.

Therefore, the present petition is filed for giving specific direction to Passport Authorities for return of passport of petitioner.

3.The respondent filed a counter and denied the averments made in the petition.

What are the allegations mentioned in the petition are not true and correct and they are invented for the purpose of present petition. If at all the Court gives a direction to release the passport to the petitioner, there is likely to permanently stay at U.S.A., there is no possibility to secure the presence of petitioner to proceed with the case, therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is that:

Whether the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

POINT:

6.Learned Counsel for petitioner argued that the offence levelled against him is not heinous or grievous in nature, it is only 304­A IPC case, punishment is only upto 2 years or fine or with both. Therefore, the petitioner assures to appear before the Court by time to time to proceed with the case. Meanwhile he has to go to U.S.A., to perform the marriage of his daughter, on that he approached Passport Authorities for renewal of his passport and Passport Authorities gave a direction as it found that Cr.No.258/2014 for the offence under section 304­A IPC which is numbered as CC 134/2018 was pending against petitioner on the file of this Court, on that no objection certificate is required from the court, hence he filed the present petition. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. Mere fact that case is pending against him is not a ground to discard the contention of petitioner, he assures to return to India after marriage of his daughter and will proceed with the case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

3

7.Learned APP argued that the petitioner wants to go to U.S.A., and he will permanently stay at U.S.A. In so many cases, the petitioners are going to abroad and settled there, in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief of no objection certificate from the Court for releasing his passport since a case is pending against him. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

8.Learned Counsel for petitioner argued that in circular dated 21.08.2014 it is clearly mentioned that as per GN GSR 570 E dated 25.08.1993 if any criminal case is pending against the petitioner, he shall obtain no objection certificate from the Court, then only his passport will be released to go to U.S.A and proceed with the case. Such plea of petitioner cannot be taken into consideration by the court can earlier, on that he relied on a decision reported in Ravindra Nath Bhargav Vs State of U.P in 2019

Supreme (All) 194. As per ratio, the Hon’ble APEX Court clearly discussed about Section 22 (a), Section 5, 6 (2) (f) Passport Act, Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India and

Sections 323, 354 (b), 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. As per ratio it clearly discussed that mere fact that criminal case is pending against him is not a ground to discard the contention of the petitioner with regard to issuance of no objection certificate as contemplated under section 22 of Passport Act, when there is specific provision is available in seeking remedy in the process of law, the Court can give remedy to the petitioner to fulfill his purpose. As per circular of Ministry of External

Affairs 570 E dated 25.08.1993 published in Central Government External Affairs part 2 section 3 dated 25.08.1993 clearly indicated that specification of return of passport by concerned authority by getting no objection certificate from criminal court, there is no statutory bar of trial court to give no objection certificate. Mere fact that a criminal case is pending against him is not a ground to discard the contention of petitioner.

9.In this case also it is very particularly the Hon’ble APEX Court clearly discussed in the decision that court can grant no objection certificate with specific direction by taking undertaking affidavit to appear before the Court from time to time without any deviation.

4

Therefore, the claim of the petitioner should be considered as the offence levelled against accused No.1 is section 304­A IPC, much less the case was registered in the year 2018 and there is little bit time to start trial, in such circumstances he can fulfill his personal affairs with regard to perform the marriage of his daughter at U.S.A., and return to India, therefore, the claim of the petitioner should be considered on the following directions.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed, accused No.1 is hereby directed to submit an undertaking affidavit to appear before this Court from time to time during pendency of present case until clearance of case and also not to permanently stay at U.S.A after taking passport and he is allowed to stay at U.S.A till completion of his daughter’s marriage.

The Passport Authority is hereby directed to renew the passport of petitioner and hand over him with a specific direction to appear before the Court by time to time. Copy of order shall communicate to the Regional Passport Authorities, Visakhapatnam for making necessary process i.e., clearance of renewal of passport of petitioner.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2020.

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.