Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 259 (AP)

Suresh Kumar Kanuri v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-02-01

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2023
ORDER : 1. Since both the Criminal petitions arise out of the same Calendar Case, they are being disposed of by this common order. Criminal Petition No.8380 of 2022 is filed by A2 and A3, who are parents of A1 and Criminal Petition No.8175 of 2022 is filed by A4 who is the brother of A1, under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1300 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Peddapuram. 2. The charge sheet reveals that the respondent No.2 herein filed private complaint on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram, which was forwarded by the Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the police to register the case and investigate into. Accordingly, the police, Jaggampeta registered the case in Crime No.90 of 2022 on 31.3.2022 and investigated and finally filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 447, 452, 506 r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Court below has taken cognizance of the said offences. In brief, the case of the prosecution is the marriage of the respondent No.2 herein was performed with A1 on 26.7.2020 as per Hindu traditions. At the time of the marriage on the demand of A1 to A4, the parents of respondent No.2 herein gave Rs.5,00,0000/- towards dowry and Rs.3,00,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam apart from gold ornaments worth Rs.1,50,000/- etc., After marriage all the accused looked after her well for some time. Thereafter all the accused started harassing her both mentally and physically by demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. When she failed to comply with the said demand, she was thrown out from the house and hence she left for her parents’ house. On 23.1.2022 evening around 5.00 PM during the absence of her parents, A1 to A3 visited her and compelled her to sign in some blank papers, but she refused and shouted at them. When her parents and neighbours came to there, A1 to A3 left the place. Later A4 threatened her over phone that she will be killed if she fails to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. When her parents and neighbours came to there, A1 to A3 left the place. Later A4 threatened her over phone that she will be killed if she fails to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. After giving notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to A1 and later with the permission of the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District to A2 to A4, charge sheet is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. This Court perused the entire record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even accepting the entire accusations are true, no offence under Section 498-A IPC has been made out. It is submitted that all the allegations made against the petitioners in the report as well as in the charge sheet are of utter falsehood. The petitioners/A2 and A3 in Crl.P.No.8380 of 2022 are senior citizens and they are suffering from old age ailements such as diabetes, blood pressure and other health issues. The petitioner/A4 is working as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, Bhimavaram Branch, and is living elsewhere. Hence, petitioners/A2 to A4 never harassed 2nd respondent herein Thus, it is contended that the ingredients of none of the offences are attracted and therefore the petitions may be allowed and the charge sheet proceedings on the file of the learned trial Court may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that there are specific accusations against the petitioners/A2 to A4. He further strenuously contended that at one instance, A4 threatened respondent No.2 over phone that she will be killed if she fails to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. The allegations made in the report as well as in the charge sheet make out prima facie case against the petitioners, hence the truth or otherwise of the said accusations have to be decided during the course of trial and therefore prayed to dismiss both the petitions. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submissions made for the respondent No.2. 7. A perusal of charge sheet goes to show that the marriage of the respondent No.2 herein was performed with A1 on 26.7.2020. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submissions made for the respondent No.2. 7. A perusal of charge sheet goes to show that the marriage of the respondent No.2 herein was performed with A1 on 26.7.2020. At the time of the marriage on the demand of A1 to A4, the parents of respondent No.2 herein gave Rs.5,00,0000/- towards dowry and Rs.3,00,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam apart from gold ornaments worth Rs.1,50,000/- etc., After marriage all the accused looked after her well for some time. Thereafter all the accused started harassing her both mentally and physically by demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. When she failed to comply with the said demand, she was thrown out from the house and hence she left for her parents house. On 23.1.2022 evening around 5.00 PM, A1 to A3 visited her and compelled her to sign in some blank papers, but she refused and shouted at them. When her parents and neighbours came to there, A1 to A3 left her place. Later A4 threatened her over phone that she will be killed if she fails to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-With the said allegations, the respondent No.2 herein filed private complaint on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram, which was forwarded by the Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to register the case and investigate into. Accordingly, the police, Jaggampeta registered the case in Crime No.90 of 2022 on 31.3.2022 and investigated and finally filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 447, 452, 506 r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is numbered as C.C.No.1300 of 2022. 8. Going by the material on record, A4 is working as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, Bhimavaram Branch, and is living elsewhere, whereas the A1 to A3 and the de facto complainant/respondent No.2 herein are residing at Palakol. The de facto complainant has made omnibus allegations that A4 along with A1 to A3 harassed her mentally and physically. It is unnatural that a person who is working elsewhere away from the residence of the de facto complainant had harassed her both mentally and physically. Except the said statement that A4 harassed the de facto complainant mentally and physically there is no other accusation as against him/A4. It is unnatural that a person who is working elsewhere away from the residence of the de facto complainant had harassed her both mentally and physically. Except the said statement that A4 harassed the de facto complainant mentally and physically there is no other accusation as against him/A4. Thereafter in the charge sheet it is also mentioned that A4 threatened the de facto complainant over phone that he will kill her if she fails to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. This accusation is very vague and bald. When these aspects cannot be taken into account more so, A4 who happened to be the brother of A1 and is also married and living elsewhere and as a Bank Manager, he is discharging his duties at another place, it is highly unnatural to come to conclusion that the petitioner/A4 harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry. 9. Hence, insofar as the A4 who is the petitioner herein in Crl.P.No.8175 of 2022 is concerned, the averments in the report given to police as well as the charge sheet filed by the police are of omnibus in nature. Absolutely no specific accusations are made against him. Except a mere statement by the de facto complainant/R2 herein that all the accused harassed her and threatened her for additional dowry, no other material is on record. Thus, continuation of proceedings against petitioner (A4) who is working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India and living away from A1 to A3 would be nothing but abuse of process of law. 10. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC 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. 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 ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein the 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; (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 (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.” 11. In the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand & Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , 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. “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. 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; or (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.” 12. In another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State Of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (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. 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. My view is fortified with the above said judgments in respect of A4, as omnibus accusations are made against him. 14. On a perusal of the recitals in charge sheet, this Court is of the opinion that there are allegations made by the de facto complainant against A2 and A3/the petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.8380 of 2022 that they harassed the de facto complainant along with A1 physically and mentally. All the accusations that are made only against A1 to A3. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.8175 of 2022 is allowed in respect of A4 and proceedings in C.C.No.1300 of 2022 are quashed against A4. 16. Insofar as the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively in Criminal Petition No.8380 of 2022 is concerned because of disputed questions of facts and the truth or otherwise of the allegations has to be decided during the course of trial, their petition is dismissed. However, considering the age of A2 and A3/the petitioners No.1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.8380 of 2022 their presence is dispensed with in the Court below. However, the petitioners in Crl.P.No.8380 of 2022 shall appear before the trial Court whenever the learned Magistrate specifically directs for their appearance. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.