Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 209 (AP)

K. Chaya Prathap Reddy v. Y. Naga Sulochana

2023-01-25

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2023
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 13 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad, Chittoor district. Petitioners herein are arrayed as A.1 to A.3 in the said case. A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1. 2. A charge sheet has been filed as against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations, in brief, are stated as follows: Marriage between 1st respondent/defacto complainant and A.1 was performed on 12.08.2017 and at the time of the marriage, cash of Rs. 20.00 lakhs and gold jewellery was given as dowry by her parents. She joined A.1 to A.3 to lead conjugal life at Hyderabad, where A.1 to A.3 joined together and started harassment against her both physically and mentally, demanding additional dowry from her parents. On 25.09.2017, A.1 to A.3 necked out her from the matrimonial home with a warning to rejoin after getting land property. The accused did not provide sufficient food to her and not treated her as human. On that, she went to house of her parents at Kothapalli village, Vayalpad mandal. On 28.09.2017, A.1 to A.3 called her to Renigunta where they forcibly took her signatures on empty bonds and white papers and threatened her not to prefer any police report against them. On a report lodged by 2nd respondent, police registered a case in Crime No. 77 of 2017 of Vayalpad police station and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 2-State and the learned counsel for 1st respondent. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even accepting the entire accusations in the charge sheet as true, still the offences alleged would not be made out as against the petitioners. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 2-State and the learned counsel for 1st respondent. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even accepting the entire accusations in the charge sheet as true, still the offences alleged would not be made out as against the petitioners. He further submitted that 1st petitioner filed a case in Crime No. 778 of 2017 of Sanjeevreddy Nagar police station, Hyderabad against 1st respondent herein and others, and after completion of investigation, police filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 494, 495 and 109 IPC, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 2626 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and the same is pending; that 1st petitioner also filed O.P. No. 1559 of 2017 on the file of the I Family Court, Hyderabad against 1st respondent herein seeking annulment of the marriage and the same is pending; that as a counter blast to the said cases, 1st respondent herein filed the present case. Basing on the aforesaid facts and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 the learned counsel contended that even accepting the said accusations to be true, the proceedings that have been filed as against the petitioners are only with a view to wreck vengeance as against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to quash the impugned proceedings. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that a perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet would go to show that there are specific accusations as against the petitioners that they harassed 1st respondent physically and mentally demanding additional dowry, necked out her from the matrimonial home and threatened her not to prefer any police report. He further contended that the contentions that have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be decided in the course of trial. 6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 2nd respondent-State concurred with the contentions of the learned counsel for 1st respondent. 7. He further contended that the contentions that have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be decided in the course of trial. 6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 2nd respondent-State concurred with the contentions of the learned counsel for 1st respondent. 7. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Others (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held: “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. Marriage of 1st respondent/defacto complainant with A.1 was performed on 12.08.2017 with the consent of both the parties by delivering cash of Rs. 20.00 lakhs and gold jewellery as dowry by her parents. Thereafter, 1st respondent/defacto complainant joined matrimonial home with A.1 to A.3 at Hyderabad. It is alleged that A.1 to A.3 joined together and started harassing her both physically and mentally and to bring additional dowry from her parents, and in consequence of that, on 25.09.2017, A.1 to A.3 necked out her from house. Thereafter, 1st respondent/defacto complainant joined matrimonial home with A.1 to A.3 at Hyderabad. It is alleged that A.1 to A.3 joined together and started harassing her both physically and mentally and to bring additional dowry from her parents, and in consequence of that, on 25.09.2017, A.1 to A.3 necked out her from house. It is further alleged that on 28.09.2017, A.1 to A.3 called her to Renigunta, where they threatened her not to prefer any complaint against them. Basing on a report dated 07.11.2017 lodged by her, police registered the aforesaid crime and laid charge sheet after completion of investigation. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied upon the O.P. No. 1559 of 2017 on the file of the I Family Court, Hyderabad filed by 1st petitioner/A.1 against 1st respondent/defacto complainant seeking annulment of their marriage. A perusal of the averments in the said O.P. goes to show that one P. Nagarjuna contacted uncle of 1st petitioner/A.1 Sri K. Sathyavelu Reddy, Zoology Professor at Tirupati and disclosed that he was married to 1st respondent/defacto complainant, and that she was immoral, unethical and her acts are questionable. He further informed that their marriage was performed on 15.03.2013 at Dharmasthali, Karnataka and sent audio recordings, photographs, messages between them to uncle of 1st petitioner/A.1, and that father of 1st petitioner/A.1 was called on 17.09.2017 to Tirupati and everything was disclosed to him. The said Nagarjuna further disclosed that 1st respondent/defacto complainant was indulging in sexual activities with one Babu, Prasad Reddy Endla and others. It is the contention of the petitioners that on coming to know about these aspects, the petitioners approached parents of 1st respondent/defacto complainant and a meeting was held on 01.10.2017 at the factory premises of one K. Dayakar Reddy, Industrial Park, Tirupati, wherein elder members of both sides participated, and entire stuff of audio recordings, messages and photographs was explained and handed over to parents of 1st respondent/defacto complainant. When one of the videos was being played, 1st respondent/defacto complainant herself stopped it and confessed her immoral acts. Thereafter, the parties executed a Vidakula Oppandha Patram and she agreed to co-operate with the 1st petitioner for dissolution of their marriage peacefully, but she did not come forward for the same. When one of the videos was being played, 1st respondent/defacto complainant herself stopped it and confessed her immoral acts. Thereafter, the parties executed a Vidakula Oppandha Patram and she agreed to co-operate with the 1st petitioner for dissolution of their marriage peacefully, but she did not come forward for the same. Thereafter, 1st petitioner/A.1 filed the aforesaid case in Crime No. 778 of 2017 of Sanjeevreddy Nagar police station, Hyderabad against 1st respondent herein and others, wherein police filed charge sheet after completion of investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 494, 495 and 109 IPC, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 2626 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and also filed O.P. No. 1559 of 2017 on the file of the I Family Court, Hyderabad against 1st respondent herein seeking annulment of the marriage and the said cases are pending. 10. 1st respondent/defacto complainant filed her counter in the said O.P. and contended that 1st petitioner/A.1 was suspecting her and quarrelling with her. She also stated that the allegations that have been made by 1st petitioner herein have been created one and there is absolutely no truth in the said accusations against her. She further contended that 1st petitioner filed fake photographs and audio tapes about the incident and forcibly took her to Nursing home for medical tests in respect of AIDS disease and the test resulted negative. 11. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the case for the reason that in a proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. it is obligatory on the part of this Court not to look into the material that has been filed. This Court is bound to go by the accusations that contained in the charge sheet and the statements of witnesses, which form integral part of the charge-sheet. 12. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on a decision in Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 30 to 34) “30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 31. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under: “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: For the purposes of this section ‘cruelty’ means: (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.” He also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 1251 wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 11 and 12) “11. The appellants are brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased. A perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which a crime was registered, does not indicate any specific allegations by disclosing the involvement of the appellants. It is the specific case of the 1st appellant that he was working as a cashier in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, which is at about 40 kms from Gorakhpur. The alleged incident was on 24.07.2018 at about 8 p.m. When the investigation was pending, the 1st appellant has filed affidavit before Senior Superintendent of Police on 08.08.2018, giving his employment details and stated that he was falsely implicated. It was his specific case that during the relevant time, he was working at ICICI Bank, Khalilabad branch, Gorakhpur and his mother was also staying with him. It was his specific case that during the relevant time, he was working at ICICI Bank, Khalilabad branch, Gorakhpur and his mother was also staying with him. The Branch Manager has endorsed his presence in the branch, showing in-time at 09:49 a.m. and out-time at 06:25 p.m. Even in the statement of 2nd respondent recorded by the police and also in the final report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. except omnibus and vague allegations, there is no specific allegation against the appellants to show their involvement for the offences alleged. This Court, time and again, has noticed making the family members of husband as accused by making casual reference to them in matrimonial disputes. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, in support of her case, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. In the aforesaid case, this Court in identical circumstances, has quashed the proceedings by observing that family members of husband were shown as accused by making casual reference to them. In the very same judgment, it is held that a large number of family members are shown in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and the contents do not disclose their active involvement, as such, taking cognizance of the matter against them was not justified. It is further held that taking cognizance in such type of cases results in abuse of judicial process. Paras 18 and 25 of the said judgment, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, read as under: “18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Case (2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735 had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed. 25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima-facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.” 12. From a perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent and the final report filed by the police under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. We are of the view that the aforesaid judgment fully supports the case of the appellants. Even in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, it is not disputed that the 1st appellant was working in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, but merely stated that there was a possibility to reach Gorakhpur by 8 p.m. Though there is an allegation of causing injuries, there are no other external injuries noticed in the postmortem certificate, except the single ante-mortem injury i.e. ligature mark around the neck, and the cause of death is shown as asphyxia. Having regard to the case of the appellants and the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that except vague and bald allegations against the appellants, there are no specific allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute them for the offences alleged. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra, which squarely applies to the case of the appellants, we are of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.” He also placed reliance on a decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar, 2022 Live Law (SC) 141 held as follows: 18. “The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC 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. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” 13. A perusal of the accusations that have been made in the charge sheet goes to show that the accused harassed 1st respondent/defacto complainant demanding additional dowry and she was necked out from the matrimonial home within a period of one month from the date of marriage. All the accusations that have been made as against the petitioners are omnibus in nature that A.1 to A.3 harassed her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. There is any amount of ambiguity that there would be a demand for additional dowry within 40 days of the marriage. 14. Insofar as petitioners 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3, who are parents of 1st petitioner/A.1 are concerned, since omnibus accusations are made as against them, this Court feels that continuation of the impugned proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of Court. In respect of 1st petitioner/A.1 is concerned, truth or otherwise of the accusations made as against him has to be decided during the course of trial. In respect of 1st petitioner/A.1 is concerned, truth or otherwise of the accusations made as against him has to be decided during the course of trial. This Court would not be in a position to conduct a roving enquiry into the same in a proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 13 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad, Chittoor district are quashed as against the petitioners 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3 are concerned. The Criminal Petition is dismissed insofar as 1st petitioner/A.1 is concerned. 16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.