PUSHPALATHA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition, inter alia, seeking for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Police, DD-II CCS, Control Room, Nampally. Hyderabad and the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, CCS, Nampally, Hyderabad in transferring the case in Cr.No.181 of 2002 dated 3.5.2002 from Women Police Station, Hyderabad to N.T.P.C. Police Station at Karimnagar for investigation as illegal and also contrary to the directions of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and quash the notice dated 13.7.2002 issued by the 3rd respondent i.e. the S.H.O, N.T.P.C. Police Station, Karimnagar in Cr.No.55 of 2002.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioner is that she had lodged a private complaint on 25.2.2002 against her husband Sri B. Prasad before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and also under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the respondents 1 and 2 for investigation and filing report by 10.5.2002. Accordingly, the matter was handed over to the 2nd respondent for investigation by the 1st respondent and thereupon a case in Cr.No. 181 of 2002 dated. 3.5.2002 was registered for the aforesaid offences and the petitioner was summoned by the 2nd respondent and her statement was also recorded. However, suddenly, the petitioner received a notice dated 13.7.2002 from the 3rd respondent summoning her and her witnesses for investigation in Cr.No.55 of 2002. On enquiry, she was told that the complaint filed against her husband was referred to 3rd respondent for investigation. The grievance of the petitioner is that such transfer from the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent is without notice and further it causes great inconvenience to her as she being a lady cannot go to NTPC Police Station which is 250 KMs away from Hyderabad and further that her husband who is working in NTPC is an influential person and there is every likelihood of threat to her and her witnesses from him. The main ground on which the present writ petition is filed is that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to seizin of the matter. It was also further pointed out that her husband had filed O.P. No.28 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapally seeking divorce which was transferred to the Family Court at Hyderabad as per the orders of this Court in Tr.C.M.P. No.62 of 2000 dated 13.6.2000 to be tried and disposed of along with O.P. No. 170 of 2000 filed by her seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned action on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in transferring the complaint to the 3rd respondent is not valid under law. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents herein, it was stated that the petitioner filed a private complaint before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging that she was married to one Prasad of Ramagundam of Karimnagar District on 6.4.1986 by duly fulfilling his demand for dowry and the marriage was consummated on 7.4.1986. However, subsequent to the marriage, he started to harass the petitioner both physically and mentally on the ground that the dowry paid to him was meager. In the meanwhile, a son was born to them out of the wedlock and the father of the petitioner bore the entire expenses for delivery and other incidental expenses. In September, 1990, she was driven out as she could not bring further dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and therefore she filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.139 of 1996 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad wherein a monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- was granted but the same is not being paid. The petitioner had also filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights and her husband also filed another case seeking divorce which was transferred to the Family Court at Hyderabad and the same was numbered as O.P. No.337 of 2000. Exercising the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad for investigation and report. However, having regard to the fact that there is necessity to examine the neighbours and other witnesses at Ramagundam and that her husband is working as Machine Operator at NTPC having married another lady and to do justice to the complainant, case was transferred to the Ramagundam Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. After the transfer, the 3rd respondent registered the case in Cr.No.55 of 2002 and accordingly sent the notice to the petitioner. It was further pointed out that since the petitioner and her parents were already examined at Hyderabad and it is not necessary for her to attend before the 3rd respondent for any further investigation and she can as well furnish the names of her witnesses at Ramagundam to enable the 3rd respondent to make further investigation. In view of the same, it is submitted that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.