Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 30 (AP)

Boddu Rani v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-03

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2025
ORDER : 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 4 seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.751 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for the offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. K.Salini, learned counsel representing Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners herein are A2 to A4 who are the mother, brother of A1 and A4 is wife of A3. A1 is the husband of the respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the marriage of A1 and the respondent No.2 took place on 01.08.2012. The petitioners never stayed with A1 and the respondent No.2 under the same roof at any point of time. Learned counsel would submit that except making omnibus allegations, nothing is attributed against the petitioners in specific. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 started a living separate from the husband since 23.12.2021 and this case is lodged on 11.05.2022 only to trouble the family members of the husband. DVC case is also filed. Learned counsel would further submit that only as an arm-twist, this case has been lodged against the family members. Even as per the contents of the complaint, the petitioners never stayed with A1 and the respondent No.2 except a few visits. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 498A and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and continuing criminal proceedings against them is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would further submit that the petitioner No.1 who is the mother in law of the respondent No.2 has partitioned the properties in irrational way. DVC case is also pending against the petitioners. There are specific allegations made against the petitioners which require full length of trial. Learned counsel would further submit that it is not a fit case for quashment. DVC case is also pending against the petitioners. There are specific allegations made against the petitioners which require full length of trial. Learned counsel would further submit that it is not a fit case for quashment. After due investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet. The court has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Learned counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the respondent No.2. Determination by the Court 6. 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. 7. To decide further in this matter, it is relevant to extract Section 498-A of I.P.C. Section 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 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.] 8. The essential ingredients under section 498A are as follows; -A woman must be married; - Such women must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment and; - Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband or the relative of husband. 9. For the purpose of constituting an offense under the Section referred Supra, the ingredients thereon must be existing. The Section also defines the meaning of cruelty. Thus, Section 498A is a powerful weapon in the hands of married women against subjection to cruelty and harassment by her husband or his relatives. 10. The context of quashment of criminal proceedings initiated in matrimonial matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court delivered numerous decisions. It is relevant to refer to a few, at this juncture. 11. 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. 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 instance 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) 12. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instance 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) 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another, 2024 INSC 369 highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows; “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.” (emphasis supplied) 13. In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another, 2024 INSC 896 the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:: “The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions.” (emphasis supplied) 14. In the backdrop of the legal position discussed supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present In the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. Coming to the facts of the present case, a fair look at the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet, except making casual reference of names of A3 and A4 that after giving birth to the female child, when they visited their house, they used to join A1 to harass the wife, nothing is attributed in specific against them. But coming to the case of A2, there are specific allegations.In that view, it is tenable to quash the crime against A3 and A4 and not against A2. 15. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 & 4 in C.C.No.751 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for the offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. However, the Petition filed by the Accused No.2 is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.