- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 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 Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. The High Court by the impugned order allowed the application quashing the proceedings.
(3.) A complaint was filed by the appellant who is father of Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who was a highly qualified person and was employed in 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 at Tirupathi. It is alleged that while the accused was fair in complexion, the deceased was not good looking. It is stated that while the family of the accused had informed that a house site stood in the name of the accused and that she had 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that they would perform the marriage in a grand scale and pay Rs.25,000/- towards the bride's clothes, subsequently, they changed their mind and promised to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the bride after nuptials. Nuptials were fixed at the house of the accused on 02.06.2004. On the next day morning the accused is alleged to have openly in the presence of the mother and sister of the deceased and other relatives, insulted the deceased stating that he was impotent, that her life was spoiled and that she did not accept the marriage. The accused is alleged to have heckled her husband that it was better to die rather to live as an impotent husband and spoil her life. According to the complainant, the deceased informed his mother and sister that the accused did not allow him to cohabit, stating that she was not interested in marrying an ugly person. Feeling ashamed and humiliated by the rude and unjust behaviour, and the attitude of the accused, the deceased is said to have suffered mental agony. He, however, stayed for the next two days at Vijayawada and thereafter returned to his native place along with his mother and sister on 05.06.2004, while the accused did not come with him. On 06.06.2004, the deceased is said to have left his native village Turakapalem even without informing the complainant and members of his family. On 09.06.2004, the complainant received a message from Innakudurupet Police Station that the deceased had committed suicide. According to the complainant, the accused was solely responsible for the suicidal death of her husband and that she had abetted in his committing suicide. It was alleged that since the deceased was insulted by the accused, he felt ashamed and committed suicide and that the acts and omissions of the accused had driven the deceased to commit suicide. The intentional instigation and cruel conduct of the accused had prompted the deceased to commit suicide. On being informed, both the accused and her mother are alleged to have come to Machilipatnam. The accused removed her Mangalasutram from her neck, had thrown only the black beads on the dead body keeping the gold suthrams with her and left the place stating that she had no connection with the family of the complainant and the Almighty had fulfilled her desire. It was alleged that, thereafter, the accused did not visit the house of the complainant and also did she attend the funeral ceremony of her husband.;