MOVVA RAJA RAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the accused, Movva Raja Ram in Crime No.89 of 2013 of Madhapur P.S., Cyberabad to quash the proceedings therein.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She filed a report before the Inspector of Police, Madhapur P.S., Cyberabad on 07 02 2013 alleging inter alia that her husband retired in Central Government Service as Director General of Labour & Employment, Government of India and he fell in trap of one lady, namely, Smt. Padma, who has been engaged as a caterer at home. The said Smt. Padma took advantage of some misunderstandings between her and her husband, who is the petitioner. Smt. Padma and the petitioner are found absconding and their whereabouts are not known. She suspected Borkar, Prakash and Sheshank for disappearance of her husband petitioner. Smt. Padma, who has been maintaining illicit relationship with the petitioner, is a married woman and mother of a son, aged 21 years. Therefore, she has been facing mental torture and social stigma and her health is being deteriorated due to mental agony. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.89 of 2013 for the offence under Section 498 A I.P.C and 'man missing ' came to be registered. Hence, this Criminal Petition by accused Movva Raja Ram in Crime No.89 of 2013 of Madhapur P.S., Cyberabad seeking the relief stated supra.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent/complainant lodged a report with the police on some misgivings when the petitioner left for Mumbai and Ahmedabad in the last week of January and 1st week of February to attend various seminars on his private affairs and due to pre occupation with his work, he could not contact the 2nd respondent and it resulted the 2nd respondent complainant to assume as if the petitioner is missing due to his illicit relationship with Padma. He further contends that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken into consideration, no ingredients of Section 498 A IPC are made out and therefore, continuation of proceedings in Crime No.89 of 2013 amounts to abuse of process of law. He would further contend that mere illicit intimacy of the husband does not amount to 'Cruelty ' as described in terms of explanation appended to Section 498 A IPC. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in U.Suvethav. State (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 757).