Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 968 (AP)

P. Venkata Ramana v. P Vani

2024-08-06

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : V.Sujatha, J. The present Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Crl.M.P.No.151 of 2018 in C.C.No.116 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli was allowed by the learned Magistrate permitting the prosecution to add the petitioners herein as accused in the main C.C. 2. Initially, basing on the complaint given by the defacto complainant i.e. P.Vani against her husband i.e. P.Anand and her inlaws i.e. the petitioners herein, a case in Cr.No.13 of 2014 of Madanapalli Taluk Police Station was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and a charge sheet was also filed vide C.C.No.116 of 2014. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the accused was performed on 03.06.2013 at Aryavysya Kalyanamandapam, CTM Village & Panchayat, Madanapalle Mandal in the presence of their elders. At the time of marriage, the parents of defacto complainant presented cash of Rs.50,000/-, 70 grams of gold and has spent Rs.3,00,000/- for marriage expenses. After marriage, the defacto complainant went along with accused to Hyderabad and lived happily for two months. After two months, the accused and her inlaws started harassed her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry and the matter was informed to the parents of defacto complainant, who pacified the matter. On 12.01.2014 at about 8.00 a.m., all the accused came to the house of LW2, abused in filthy language and beat them. Basing on the report give by the defacto complainant, a case was registered against all the accused. 4. After recording the version of Lws 4 to 6, the prosecution found that no offence has been taken place as alleged by the defacto complainant on 12.01.2014 and after recording the statements of independent witnesses i.e. Lws 7 to 10, it is found that no offence has been made by accused Nos.2 to 4/petitioners herein. Hence, their names were deleted and charge sheet was filed only against the accused No.1. 5. Hence, their names were deleted and charge sheet was filed only against the accused No.1. 5. After filing of the charge sheet, a case was taken on file as C.C.No.116 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle and during the course of pendency of the said case, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add the proposed accused No.2 to 4 as accused in the main case and the same was allowed. 6. The case of the petitioners herein is that, the petitioners are innocents and falsely implicated in the above case. After deleting the petitioners? names, the prosecution filed a charge sheet. Though, the defacto complainant received notice, but did not choose to file any protest petition. In fact, the 1st petitioner herein filed a complaint in C.C.No.911 of 2015 before the learned XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC against the 1st respondent herein and her parents. Subsequently, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The police, after conducting thorough investigation and basing on the statements of independent witnesses, had deleted the names of the petitioners herein from the case. Now, after lapse of nearly 4 ½ years, only in order to harass the petitioners, the prosecution filed a petition to implead them as accused. Therefore, requested this Court to allow the petition. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for 1st respondent. 9. 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.116 of 2014 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 10. 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. 11. 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: 10. 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. 12. 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. 12. 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 ” 13. 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? 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.” 14. In a decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State Of Bihar 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, wherein it was held as follows: 18. In a decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State Of Bihar 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, wherein 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.” 15. 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. 16. 16. A perusal of the charge sheet contents, it is the case of the defacto complainant that her marriage was performed with the accused i.e. accused No.1 in the year 2013. After marriage, she went to Hyderabad along with her husband and lived happily for certain period. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused harassed her both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. During the course of investigation, the prosecution examined Lws 1 to 6 and recorded the statements and also visited the scene of offence. Thereafter, Lws 7 to 10 were examined and their statements were also recorded. The prosecution by taking into consideration the statements of the independent witnesses, have came to a conclusion that no offence had been made against the accused No.2 to 4/petitioners herein and hence their names were deleted from the charge sheet. 17. In support of the case of the petitioners herein, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Sagar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 389, wherein it is held that in order to exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the Court should use the power sparingly and only in those cases the circumstances of the case so warrant. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising such powers. 18. As per the memo of evidence, Lws 1 to 6 are residents of Madanapalle, where the parents of defacto complainant are residing. The other witnesses i.e. Lws 7 to 10 said to be neighbours of accused No.1 are residents of Hyderabad. As per the version of Lws 4 to 6 it is found that the incident has not occurred on 12.01.2014. Further, as per the version of Lws 7 to 10, who are said to be independent witnesses, all the witnesses in one voice stated that they know the defacto complainant and the accused persons, who are residing beside their houses. Their statements discloses that after two months of marriage of defacto complainant and the accused No.1, all the accused started harassing the defacto complainant demanding for additional dowry. Their statements discloses that after two months of marriage of defacto complainant and the accused No.1, all the accused started harassing the defacto complainant demanding for additional dowry. Except they stating that they are neighbours to the house of accused and after two months of matrimonial life of the defacto complainant and the accused No.1, all the accused started harassing the defacto complainant, demanding for additional dowry, no specific overt acts has been attributed as against the accused persons regarding when, where and what type of harassment has been made by the petitioners herein towards the defacto complainant during the relevant point of time. 19. Now, coming to the version of learned Magistrate that after the prosecution filed the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at a stage when the case was coming for the cross-examination of PW3, the learned Magistrate by taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 has allowed the petition with a view that the truth or otherwise of the allegations has to be decided during the course of trial but not at this stage and hence, the petition was allowed. 20. In a case under Section 498 IPC, the version of independent witnesses shall be taken into consideration than the version of interested witnesses. In the case on hand, Lws 4 to 6 are residents of Madanapalli and who are well known persons to the parents of defacto complainant and ultimately they are said to be interested witnesses. Whereas, coming to the Lws 7 to 10 they are neighbours of accused No.1 at Hyderabad and they are said to be independent witnesses and their statements are to be given top priority, who has not attributed any specific overt acts against the petitioners herein as to in what way they harassed the defacto complainant. A perusal of the contents of the statements of the above witnesses clearly shows that they deposed the statements in a formal manner. Hence, taking into consideration of said statements only, the prosecution has rightly felt that no offence has been made out by the petitioners herein and as such deleted the names of the petitioners while filing the charge sheet. 21. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds force in the arguments of the petitioners herein that no offence has been made out as against them. Therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed. 22. 21. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds force in the arguments of the petitioners herein that no offence has been made out as against them. Therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed. 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.151 of 2018 in C.C.No.116 of 2024 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle is hereby quashed against the petitioners herein. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed.