Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1441 (AP)

V. Sreenivasulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-14

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
JUDGMENT/ ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in CC No.283 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act'). 2. Petitioner/accused No.2 is the mother, petitioner/accused No.3 is the sister and petitioner/accused No.4 is the brother-in-law of petitioner/accused No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : (a) The marriage between respondent No.2/de facto complainant and petitioner/accused No.1 was performed on 16.03.2000 at Punganur per Hindu rites and caste customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 gave an amount of Rs.2 lakhs, gold bracelet, one gold chain, two gold rings as dowry and also presented gold ornaments weighing 250 gms., to respondent No.2. (b) Out of wedlock, as she gave birth to a female child. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 used to harass her verbally. When respondent No.2 gave birth to another female child, petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 4 asked her to leave the child and petitioner/accused No.1 threatened that if she does not for do so, he will leave her. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 used to support petitioner/ accused No.1 in harassing her. (c) Petitioner/accused No.1 used to beat respondent No.2 indiscriminately by demanding additional dowry of Rs.15 lakhs. The efforts of the elders for pacifying the matter proved futile and there was no change in the attitude of petitioner/accused No.1. On 27.01.2021, on her absence, petitioner/accused No.1 came to the house and took away gold jewellery, house documents, two gas cylinders in the presence of her younger daughter. (d) Having no other go, she lodged a complaint with the police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.51 of 2021 on the file of Punganur Urban Police Station, Chittoor District for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet which was numbered as CC No.283 of 2021 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet which was numbered as CC No.283 of 2021 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. (e) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them. 4. Heard Sri P.V.N. Kiran Kumar, learned Counsel representing Ms. S. Parineeta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/respondent No.1 and Sri P.V. Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 would submit that, after 21 years of the marriage, the complaint was lodged against the petitioners. Learned Counsel would further submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 never resided alongwith the family of respondent No.2 and they have been falsely implicated in the present case, though no specific overt acts are attributed against them. Learned Counsel would further submit that since 2014 respondent No.2 has not been residing with petitioner/accused No.1 and she herself deserted him. Learned Counsel would finally submits that, except bald and omnibus allegations, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC No.283 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur? Determination by the Court 8. Determination by the Court 8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary : (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a Court of appeal or a Court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 9. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows: "102. 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 channelised 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 prime 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 prime 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 FIR 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. 103. (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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect 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; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the case on hand, a perusal of the material on record would go to show that the marriage of respondent No.2 had taken place with accused No.1 about 21 years prior to lodging of the present complaint. Admittedly, petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are residing away from the family of respondent No.2 and petitioner/accused No.1. Nowhere in the complaint, it was mentioned that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 visited her marital home and harassed her. 11. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324 , wherein, it was held as follows :-- "For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." (Emphasis supplied) 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another, 2024 INSC 369 , highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows : "25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. The Court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute." (Emphasis supplied) 13. To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present in the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the section, general vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. 14. A bare perusal of the material on record would reveal that there are no specific overt acts attributed against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4. It is alleged against them that they supported accused No.1 in harassing respondent No.2. 14. A bare perusal of the material on record would reveal that there are no specific overt acts attributed against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4. It is alleged against them that they supported accused No.1 in harassing respondent No.2. In the absence of any specific overt acts against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, only on the bald and omnibus allegations, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. The entire allegations are pertaining to petitioner/accused No.1. Since there are specific overt acts attributed against him, the veracity of the said allegations has to be decided during the course of trial. When there is a material to proceed further against the petitioner/accused No.1, it is not a fit case to entertain the quashment against him. However, as discussed above, since there are no specific allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, the proceedings against them can be quashed. 15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in CC No.283 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The petition insofar as the petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, is hereby dismissed and the proceedings against him may continue as per law. 16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.