Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 832 (AP)

N. J. Ramesh v. State of AP

2022-09-02

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2022
ORDER : The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.217 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner. 2. A case in Crime No.68 of 2014 of V. Kota Police Station was registered against the petitioners/A2 to A7 and also A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Cr.No.68 of 2014 of V.Kota Police Station. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant is a resident of Ramapuram Village, V.Kota Mandal. The complainant got five children and his elder daughter G.K.Uma–L.W.2 got married with one N.J.Krishnamurthy/A1, who is none other than his elder sister’s son. At the time of fixation, he gave Rs.1,00,000/-and 250 grams of gold jewels towards dowry to the accused. Out of their wedlock, she was blessed with one son. Later the accused harassed wife physically and mentally. Due to the unbearable harassment of the accused, the defacto complainant has resorted in filing the complaint. Upon which, a case in Cr.No.68 of 2014 of V.Kota Police Station has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Police, after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 only and the petitioners are deleted from the charge sheet, since the allegations are only directed against A1. It is observed in the charge sheet that all the petitioners herein are residing elsewhere. Against the deletion of the petitioners names, defacto complainant filed a Protest Petition in C.F.R. No.594 of 2016. By order dated 12.06.2018, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case against the petitioners, by examining the defacto complainant and other witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even accepting the entire accusations as true, no offence under Section 498A of the IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is attracted as against the petitioners for the reason that there is no specific accusation against any of the petitioners herein. He also further submitted that all the accusations are directed against A1. 6. He also further submitted that all the accusations are directed against A1. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that there are specific accusations as against the petitioners herein and truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided in the course of trial and it is a premature stage and this Court is not expected to decide the disputed questions of fact in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the police after investigation deleted the names of the petitioners herein for the reason that all the petitioners are residing elsewhere and they are no way connected to the said offences. 8. Perused the record. 9. Admittedly, a perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that the accused harassed the defacto complainant by beating her on daily basis. By virtue of the same, her health had deteriorated further. Unable to bear the harassment, she resorted to file the complaint against her husband and relatives of the husband. Police, after conducting investigation, came to a conclusion that the allegations are made against A1 only, and in respect of the petitioners herein, since they are residing elsewhere, they are no way connected to the family of the accused and the defacto complainant. Thereafter, when the defacto complainant resorted in filing a Protest Petition, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the same against the petitioners also. The sworn statement of the defacto complainant in the Protest Petition goes to show that she made an allegation for the first time that all the accused beat the defacto complainant and harassed her. Except that statement that has been made at a belated stage stating that all the accused have beaten her on one occasion, there is no other allegations that has been made against the petitioners herein. Even in the sworn statement of other witness, they only stated with regard to the fact that A2 to A7 harassed defacto complainant’s daughter. Apart from the said accusation, there is no other allegations against the petitioners herein. It is needless to say that there is absolutely no allegations against the petitioners herein which attract a prima facie case for the offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in “Seenivasan Vs. It is needless to say that there is absolutely no allegations against the petitioners herein which attract a prima facie case for the offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in “Seenivasan Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another”, 2019 8 Sessions Court 642 which reads as follows: “Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. The Quash Petition was filed before the High Court by the A-5 to A-7. So far as A-5 is concerned, as she died during the pendency of the proceedings, cause did not survive. So far as A-7, who is the wife of A-6, is concerned, the High Court has observed that there are no specific overt acts against her and she has been residing in a different address and at no point of time she had been in a joint family wherein the de facto complainant lived during the period the alleged demand of dowry is said to have been made. On the aforesaid ground, the High Court has quashed the proceedings so far as A-7 is concerned. So far as Appellant-A-6 is concerned, the petition is dismissed by the High Court observing that there are some averments, against the Appellant. It is not in dispute that the Appellant-A-6, who is the husband of A-7, was residing at a different address during the time alleged demand was made. Further, we have perused the complaint filed by the 2nd Respondent. Mainly the specific allegations are only against the husband and immediate family members. So far as the Appellant who is A-1's paternal uncle's son, a bald allegation is made that he along with his mother and wife were abusing the complainant. In absence of any specific allegations against him, we are of the view that the Appellant also stands on same the footing of A-7 against whom proceedings are quashed. As the Appellant was not even residing in the address of the complainant and his family members who are A-1 to A-4 and in absence of specific allegations and overt acts, we are of the view that if the proceedings are allowed to go on against the Appellant, it amounts to abuse of process. As the Appellant was not even residing in the address of the complainant and his family members who are A-1 to A-4 and in absence of specific allegations and overt acts, we are of the view that if the proceedings are allowed to go on against the Appellant, it amounts to abuse of process. Applying the ratio laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. MANU/SC/0115/1992 : 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, we are of the view that it is a clear case which falls within one of the categories of the aforesaid case where power can be exercised Under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.” 11. He also relied upon the judgment in “Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others” which is reads as follows: “The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A Indian Penal Code and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the Accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all Accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each Accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each Accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court have categorically stated that in respect of the relatives of husband, specific accusations have to be made to make out a case under Section 498A of IPC. In the absence of any specific accusations against the accused, time and again, this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically stated that proceedings against the accused would fail. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also gone to the extent, that since there are no number of cases been filed for the offences under Section 498A of IPC and the pendency of implicating the family members of the husband is enormy. 13. This Court, having perused the record, holds that even accepting the accusations against the petitioners as true, no prima facie case for the offences alleged is made out against them, all the accusations are attributed only against A1. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same has to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.217 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner are hereby quashed against the petitioners. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.