Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 710 (AP)

Boddu Lakshmi Prasanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-06-27

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : 1. The present Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the docket order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1586/2019 in S.R. No. 4587/2019 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvuru, W.G. District to direct the Court below to take cognizance against A2 to A5. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner filed a complaint vide Crl. M.P. No. 1568 of 2019 in Sr. No. 4587 of 2019 under Section 190(1) (b) of Cr.P.C. on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvuru, W.G. District alleging that she gave a complaint against her husband and in-laws to the Station House Officer, Tallapudi Police Station, which was registered as a case in Cr. No. 57/2018 under Section 498(a) of I.P.C. Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused and the Police filed charge sheet against her husband/A1 only, by deleting the Accused No. 2 to 5 without proper investigation. Therefore, requested the Court below to proceed according to law in the interest of justice. However, the Court below vide orders dated 05.08.2019 taken cognizance against A2 alone and dismissed the petition in so far as the other respondents/ accused concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the said docket order dated 05.08.2019 and requested to take cognizance against A3 to A5. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State as well as Mr. K.V. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5. 4. Perused the material on record. 5. 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. 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. 6. 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. (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. 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.” 7. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings initiated in matrimonial matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has delivered numerous decisions. It is relevant to refer to a few, at this juncture. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 Live Law (SC) 141 held as follows: “18. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings initiated in matrimonial matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has delivered numerous decisions. It is relevant to refer to a few, at this juncture. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. 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.” 8. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 the Apex Court held as under: “24. A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion and the relevant observations of the court are reproduced in Para 24 of the said judgment as under: “Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. “30. 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 are also a matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber 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 fiber, 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. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 9. 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. (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. 10. (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. 10. As seen from the contents of the complaint, the allegations are that the marriage of the petitioner was performed with one Boddu Mukesh Srinivas on 20.06.2014 and on the demand of her husband and in-laws, the parents of the petitioner have given Rs.1,00,000/- towards adapaduchu launchanams, 28 Sov. of Gold ornaments and Ac. 4.00 of land towards pasupu kumkuma and spent Rs.8,00,00/- towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, the petitioner went to U.S.A. with her husband to lead her conjugal life. During her wed lock, the petitioner was blessed with a female child. But the husband of the petitioner i.e. accused No. 1, at the instance of her mother-in-law and mother-in-law’s mother, harassed the complainant both mentally and physically to sell the land of Ac. 4.00 cents given towards pasupu kumkuma. Subsequently, in the month of January 2017 the petitioner returned to India and her parents sent the petitioner with baby rituals as per their customs. But the in-laws of the petitioner continued the harassment against the petitioner both physically and mentally to sell the land of Ac. 4.00 cents and misused her gold ornaments for their own purpose. Meanwhile, husband of the petitioner insisted her in-laws to neck out the petitioner along with her child, to her parents house. When the elders held Panchayat, husband of the petitioner agreed to take back the petitioner and to put separate family at Hyderabad, but he has absconded without informing them. Therefore, the petitioner requested to take action against her husband one Boddu Mukesh Srinivas, her mother-in-law one Boddu Varalakshmi, her sister-in-law one Lamkasani Vasanthi and the parents of her mother-in-law i.e. one Ravipati Naga Satyanarayana, one Chemchu Lakshmi. 11. A perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Station House Officer, Tallapudi Police Station, the allegations contribute the offences against A1 and A2, who are the husband and mother in law of the petitioner only. 11. A perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Station House Officer, Tallapudi Police Station, the allegations contribute the offences against A1 and A2, who are the husband and mother in law of the petitioner only. But there are no specific overt acts committed by the respondents 3 to 5/A3 to A5 to constitute the alleged offences except adding their names in the last Para of the complaint. Except omnibus allegations, there is absolutely no specific accusation against A3 to A5. 12. Time and again the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court categorically held that a tendency has been developed for roping in all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband [Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 ]. All the allegations that were made against them are either vague or general in nature. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the petition against A3 to A5. Hence, this Court find no grounds to interfere with the docket order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1586/2019 in S.R. No. 4587/2019 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvuru, W.G. District. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 14. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand closed.