Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 156 (AP)

Rajulapati Siva Prasad v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-27

V.SUJATHA

body2025
ORDER : (V. SUJATHA, J.) This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in FIR No.220 of 2019 on the file of Inaguduru Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A , 420, 494 , 506 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act . 2. The petitioner in this case is accused No.7. The respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant filed a complaint stating that her marriage with accused No.7 took place on 05.06.2015. At the time of the marriage, on the demand of accused No.7 and others, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, accused No.1 and the complainant resided together at the in-laws' house in Gunadala, Vijayawada and lead a happy marital life for six months. Later, accused No.1 got addicted to bad vices and harassed the defacto-complainant to bring additional dowry, along with other accused persons. In August, 2018, the defacto-complainant came to know that marriage of accused No.1 was performed with one Parvathi in the year 2013 and blessed with one daughter. The defacto-complainant requested to take necessary action against the accused No.1, who cheated without informing about the accused No.1?s first marriage and his demand to bring additional dowry. On the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.220 of 2019 has been registered on the file of Inaguduru Police Station. 4. The petitioner who is accused No.7, filed the present petition stating that he is neither a family member nor a relative of accused No.1, and he has no connection with the crime in question. The petitioner has only attended the wedding of accused No.1 and de facto complainant, but had never met the complainant or the accused persons. Therefore, he is not involved in the crime, except for his knowledge that the marriage between accused No.1 and Parvathi took place in the 2013, which was registered at the Marriage Registration Office, and they were blessed with a child. In light of the above, prays to allow the petition. 5. Therefore, he is not involved in the crime, except for his knowledge that the marriage between accused No.1 and Parvathi took place in the 2013, which was registered at the Marriage Registration Office, and they were blessed with a child. In light of the above, prays to allow the petition. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.7 is that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and that the allegations made against the petitioner do not attract the alleged offences and a case was registered based on the vague allegations to implicate the petitioner in the case. The learned counsel would further submit that the allegations made in the FIR do not make out a case against the petitioner and it is unfair to compel the petitioner to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial in the absence of any offences against him. 6. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against petitioner. He would submit that the allegations made against the petitioner would squarely attract the offence alleged against him and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.7 in Crime No.220 of 2019 on the file of Inaguduru Police Station, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 8. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. 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. (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.” (emphasis supplied) 10. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 12. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 13. In the case on hand, a perusal of the material on record would go to show that all the accusations are made against Accused No.7 to the extent that he joined the hands of the other accused persons in demanding the de-facto complainant to bring additional dowry. All the accusations that have been made, as per the F.I.R, are alleged to have taken place in Patha Ramannapeta, where Accused No.1 and the victim were residing and at the in-law?s house of the de facto complainant i.e., at Gunadala, Vijayawada. 14. In so far as petitioner/Accused No.7 is concerned, petitioner/accused No.7 is the nephew of Accused No.2. All the accusations that have been made, as per the F.I.R, are alleged to have taken place in Patha Ramannapeta, where Accused No.1 and the victim were residing and at the in-law?s house of the de facto complainant i.e., at Gunadala, Vijayawada. 14. In so far as petitioner/Accused No.7 is concerned, petitioner/accused No.7 is the nephew of Accused No.2. Except stating that petitioner/accused No.7 also supported accused persons in demanding additional dowry, there is no specific date or time as regards to the harassment in the F.I.R as well as complaint against the petitioner herein to explain the same. Except omnibus allegations, there is absolutely no specific accusation against the petitioners. 15. 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. No specific instances have been mentioned in the charge sheet against the petitioner/accused No.7. All the allegations that were made against them are either vague or general in nature. More so, the allegations in the charge sheet against these petitioners would not come within the definition of „cruelty? as defined under Section 498-A IPC . Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.7 is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view, that there are justifiable grounds to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. 16. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R.No.220 of 2019 on the file of Inaguduru Police Station, Krishna District are hereby quashed against the petitioner/accused No.3. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.