Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1101 (AP)

Matla Priyanka v. State of A. P.

2024-08-13

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2017 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam against the petitioner/accused No.4 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 324 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. 2. The de-facto complainant/2nd respondent lodged a report before the concerned police on 05.10.2016, alleging that her husband along with his parents and sister harassed her both mentally and physically and subjected her to cruelty demanding additional dowry and also attributing infertility. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is the father-in-law, accused No.3 is the mother-in-law and accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the de-facto complainant. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.198 of 2016 has been registered on the file of Maharanipeta Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigation revealed that the marriage of the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 took place on 04.06.2015 in the presence of elders from both sides and that the parents of the de facto complainant had paid Rs.10 lakhs as dowry and adorned her daughter with 50 tulas of gold and paid Rs.1 lakh towards Adapaduchu katnam and also presented articles worth Rs.3,00,000/-. Accused No.1 is a habitual drunkard and he developed an imaginary suspicion towards his wife's character since their marriage and has been thrashing her frequently and harassing her, attributing infertility for not conceiving a child since after one year of their marriage. The parents of accused No.1, i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3 supported him when he harassed the de-facto complainant. On 06.08.2016, accused No.4, who is the sister of accused No.1, came from Hyderabad and she also instigated accused No.1 in harassing the de-facto complainant. The investigation further revealed that on the night of 08.08.2016 at about 10.00 pm, accused No.1 severely beat the de-facto complainant and inflicted burn injury on her left hand and thrashed her head towards gas stove in the kitchen. On hearing her cries, their neighbor (L.W.8) came out and the de-facto complainant informed her about the situation. The brother of the de-facto complainant requested the neighbor to stay with his sister till his parents come. On hearing her cries, their neighbor (L.W.8) came out and the de-facto complainant informed her about the situation. The brother of the de-facto complainant requested the neighbor to stay with his sister till his parents come. Then, accused No.1 left the defacto complainant alone in their flat and went to Flat No.402, where his parents reside. The parents of the de-facto complainant arrived and shifted the de-facto complainant to KGH for treatment. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet stating that accused No.1 is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 498-A and 324 I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and accused Nos.2 to 4 are liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 submits that the petitioner is a married woman and she does not reside along with accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant and that she has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that except making vague and omnibus allegations, there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner/accused No.4. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent submitted that truth or otherwise of the allegations against the petitioner has to be decided during the course of trial and at this stage, this Court cannot look into those aspects and come to a conclusion that the allegations are omnibus in nature and quash the proceedings. 5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent. 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows : “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2017 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 7. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 8. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: 9. In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 10. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. 10. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 494 ” 11. In a decision in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand & Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , wherein it was 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. 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. 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 a decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, it was held as follows 18. In a decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, it was 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. For better appreciation, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted here under : 498A. 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 purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a) any willful 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. 14. 14. In the backdrop of the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above, it is to be examined whether the allegations made against the present petitioner/accused No.4 would attract the alleged offences and whether a prima facie case can be said to have been made out against the petitioner on the basis of the said allegations. Admittedly, the petitioner herein/accused No.4 is the sister of accused No.1/ husband of the de-facto complainant. A perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R. and the contents of the charge sheet would reveal that the petitioner/accused No.4 is married and living with her husband and that she is not staying along with accused Nos.1 to 3. This Court has perused the contents of the report lodged by the de-facto complainant. So far as the present petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned, it is alleged by the de-facto complainant that on 06.08.2016, the petitioner herein came to their house and since then, on her instigation, accused No.1 subjected her to harassment and left the de-facto complainant alone in their flat and went to Flat No.402, where his parents reside. Except this allegation and except making a further bald allegation that on 08.08.2016, when accused No.1 was harassing her physically, the petitioner/accused No.4 and accused Nos.2 and 3 did not stop him and instead, provoked him to kill her, there are no other specific overt acts or specific instances attributed against the present petitioner/accused No.4. 15. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court categorically held that a tendency has been developed in roping all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband and the accusations against the relatives of the husband, if omnibus in nature, have to be curtailed at the threshold. In the instant case, the accusations that are made against the present petitioner/accused No.4 are either vague or general in nature. No specific instances have been mentioned in the report, attributing specific overt acts against the petitioner/accused No.4, which would attract the offences alleged. The allegations, if any, in the charge sheet would not come within the definition of "cruelty" as defined under Section 498-A IPC, so far as the present petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned. 16. No specific instances have been mentioned in the report, attributing specific overt acts against the petitioner/accused No.4, which would attract the offences alleged. The allegations, if any, in the charge sheet would not come within the definition of "cruelty" as defined under Section 498-A IPC, so far as the present petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 would amount to abuse of process of Court. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned proceedings so far as the petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed as against the petitioner /accused No.4. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.