Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 115 (AP)

Bokka Venkata Prasad v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-20

V.SUJATHA

body2025
ORDER : The instant criminal 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 5, seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.319 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC?) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short "D.P.Act). 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- i) Respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are accused Nos.1 to 5. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the defacto complainant, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are in-laws of the defacto complainant. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are brother-in-laws of the defacto complainant. The marriage of respondent No.2 was performed with petitioner No.1 about 20 years ago. As per the demand of petitioner No.1, parents of respondent No.1 gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and 10 sovereigns of Gold ornaments as dowry. ii) After the marriage, respondent No.2 went to her in-laws house to lead happy marital life. As petitioner No.1 was doing Tailoring works, they lived in Hyderabad for a period of two years and later, they went to Mumbai. They are blessed with two daughters. In Mumbai, respondent No.2 came to know that petitioner No.1 has illegal intimacy with another lady. Further, respondent No.2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment by petitioner No.1. Due to the physical and mental harassment caused by petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 and her children went to her parents' house and informed the same to her in- laws, but petitioner Nos.2 to 5 supported petitioner No.1 and demanded additional dowry. Then the matter was placed before the elders, in the settlement, parents of respondent No.2 gave Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry to petitioner No.1, thereafter, petitioner No.1 started tailoring shop at Amalapuram, but continued his illegal intimacy, on noticing the same, respondent No.2 questioned petitioner No.1, then he beat respondent No.2 and demanded additional dowry by selling the land of Ac.0.25 cents, which was gifted to respondent No.2 by her parents at the time of her marriage. As per the demand of petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 sold the land and paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of elders. As per the demand of petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 sold the land and paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of elders. iii) Thereafter, petitioner No.1 shifted his residence to Hyderabad and continued to harass the respondent No.2, due to the continuous harassment caused by petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 came back to her in-laws house. Again, petitioners demanded additional dowry from the parents of respondent No.2. On 15.10.2016 at about 08.30 p.m. petitioner No.1 visited the house of respondent No.2 and demanded her to sign on divorce papers, as she refused sign on those papers, petitioner No.1 beat her indiscriminately and tried to pour acid on her. On hearing the cries of petitioner No.1, elders and neighbours went to the house of respondent No.2 and rescued her. (iv) Thereafter, respondent No.2 went to the police and lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein. Police registered the same as a case in Crime No. 163 of 2016 and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the petitioners accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with 34 of 1.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was registered as C.C.No.319 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta. The present petition has been filed to quash the said C.C.No.319 of 2017. 3. Heard Mr.Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/A1 to A5 would submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet that the complainant was physically, mentally and economically harassed and abused her in filthy language are all false, frivolous and baseless and without any specific contents. Even if those allegations are taken to be true at their face value do not constitute any offence much less the alleged offence. He further submits that A1 died in the year 1923 and hence the proceedings against A1 cannot be continued and hence he prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 5. Even if those allegations are taken to be true at their face value do not constitute any offence much less the alleged offence. He further submits that A1 died in the year 1923 and hence the proceedings against A1 cannot be continued and hence he prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Mr.T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2, would submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet constitute specific offence leveled against the petitioners and truth or otherwise of which will be revealed during the course of trial and there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.319 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, East Godavari District for the offences under Section 498-A IPC, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act 7. 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. 8. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. 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. 8. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. 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.” 9. 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 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. 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.” 10. 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. 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 . 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.” 11. 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 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. 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, 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.” 12. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 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. In the case on hand, a bare perusal of the complaint as well as charge sheet would indicate that the entire allegations were made against A1, who is the husband of the de-facto complainant and who had illegal intimacy with another woman and who harassed the de-facto complainant physically, mentally and economically on account of his illicit intimacy and thereby necked her out by demanding additional dowry. A perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the charge sheet would further show that the allegations made against A2 to A5 is about their active support in the acts of the harassment against the de-facto complainant by A1 for bringing additional dowry on account of his illicit intimacy. Except such bald allegation, there are no specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners/A2 to A5 about their active involvement in the acts of the harassment of the de-facto complainant. 15. Except such bald allegation, there are no specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners/A2 to A5 about their active involvement in the acts of the harassment of the de-facto complainant. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the view that no case is made out against the petitioners/A2 to A5 and in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioners/A2 to A5 they were falsely implicated in the alleged crime for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and in the absence of any specific allegations, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and travesty of justice. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court categorically held that a tendency is being developed for roping in all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family members of the husband. All the allegations made against the petitioners are not only vague but also general in nature. More so, the allegations in the charge sheet against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 would not come within the definition of "cruelty? as defined under Section 498-A IPC. Further, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that A1 died in the year 2023 and the said fact is not disputed or denied by the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent. 16. In the circumstances, stated above, as there are no allegations attributed against the petitioners/A2 to A5, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A5 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 to A5 are liable to be quashed. Further as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that A1, who is the husband of the de-facto complainant died in the year 2023, which is not is disputed or denied by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A1 is liable to be dismissed as abated. 17. Further as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that A1, who is the husband of the de-facto complainant died in the year 2023, which is not is disputed or denied by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A1 is liable to be dismissed as abated. 17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed and the proceedings initiated against Petitioners/A2 to A5 in C.C.No.319 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, are hereby quashed, while the proceedings in respect of the petitioner/A1 are hereby dismissed as abated. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.