Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 577 (AP)

Kunchala Sri Devi v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-05-10

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[in short ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed, by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C. No.446 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnuru, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.[in short ‘D.P. Act’] 2. Contents of the charge sheet in brief: a. The marriage of the complainant was performed on 26.08.2021 with Accused No.1 in the case, who is the son of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein, at Tirupathi. At the time of her marriage, on demand of A1 and his parents A2 & A3, her parents presented an amount of Rs.1 lakh, 1 sovereign gold ring and Rs.50,000/- worth household articles towards dowry. b. They do not have any issues. A1/husband of the complainant is affected with polio. Her marriage with A1 was performed by believing the deceitful words of the petitioners saying that A1 studied B.Com, working in a private firm and gets Rs.30,000/- per month. After marriage, the complainant joined with A1and her in-laws at Dilsukhnagar. Sincethen, her in-laws/A2 & A3 used to harass her mentally. Later they shifted to Miyapur nearby her sister-in-law’s house. c. A1 used to come home late night in drunken state and harass her by demanding additional dowry. Sometimes, he used to wear her dresses and behave unusual and subjected her to mental torture. On the instigation of petitioners/A2 to A7, husband of the defacto complainant/A1 used to beat her by demanding additional dowry. On 27.11.2018 at about 11.00 P.M., A1/husband of the complainant came in drunken state and picket up quarrel demanded to bring Rs.2 lakhs from her parents and with the support of all the petitioners/A2 to A7, beat her indiscriminately. Later all the petitioners beat her. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law caught hold her tuft and her husband necked her out of the matrimonial house and threatened to kill if she fails to bring the additional amount demanded by the petitioners. The complainant reached to her parents’ house and her parents and elders tried to settle the issue, but in vain. Later the complainant presented a report in police station. The complainant reached to her parents’ house and her parents and elders tried to settle the issue, but in vain. Later the complainant presented a report in police station. Basing on the report given by the complainant, case was registered as Cr.No.83 of 2021 of Ponnuru Town Police Station and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present petition seeking quashment of the case against them on the following grounds: a. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner Nos.5 and 6 except they have supported the husband of the complainant. They are not at all relatives of the husband falling under Section 498-A of I.P.C. They are no way connected to A1 as a relative. b. Petitioner No.3/A4 who is the sister-in-law of the complainant and petitioner No.4/A5 is the husband of A4 are also no way connected to the family affairs of A1. The allegations against them are also vague. c. A1 is a physically handicapped person. The complainant willingly accepted the marriage with A1. d. In fact, on the day of alleged incident, the complainant along with A1 were present at her sister’s family in Mutnuru Village in Guntur District, a photo is also filed showing the same. e. The complainant alleged that she was necked out of the house on 27.11.2018, but she gave the report on 24.04.2021, which is almost 2 ½ years after the alleged incident. Arguments advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1. Despite notice served on Respondent No.2, none appeared. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are A2 to A7 and that the offence alleged against the petitioners are for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w.34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. It is stated that there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners 5 and 6, except stating that they have supported A1 and that Petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are not relatives of the husband to attract the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. It is also stated that the Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are wife and husband and that they both are Software Engineers, who have no interest whatsoever relating to the family affairs of A1 and the complainant. It is stated that the petitioner No.3 is the daughter of A2 and A3 and she married the petitioner No.4, which is a love marriage and therefore she has no proper relation with the family of her parents. 6. Learned counsel further submits that A1 is physically handicapped person and that it is improbable to say that there was a demand of dowry. Even if the entire statement of the complainant is taken into consideration, no offence is made out much less Sections 498-A I.P.C. and 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. The complainant did not choose to give the report immediately. After the alleged incident said to have been occurred on 27.11.2018, she gave report on 24.04.2021 and demanding huge amount for settlement. Complainant lived with her husband only for three months. She is not ready to join with her husband in the matrimonial house. Except omnibus allegations, no specific allegations are attributed against the petitioners. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the complaint shows specific allegations attributing against the petitioners and prays for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determination 8. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: Whether the case against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 in C.C.No.446 of 2021 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? 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. 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 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 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. (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. 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 context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. 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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 11. A thorough reading of the complaint and charge sheet would reveal that except a casual reference of the names of the petitioners 5 and 6, no specific allegations are attributed against the petitioners 5 and 6. However, as specific allegations attributed against the petitioners 3 and 4, this Court cannot decide the truth or otherwise of the contentions at this stage in a quash petition. Matter requires comprehensive enquiry during the course of the trial. As such, petition is liable to be dismissed for petitioner Nos., 1 to 4. 12. In that view, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners 5 and 6/A6 and A7. In so far as the other petitioners are concerned, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.