Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 56 (AP)

Banavat Bharathi Bai v. State Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-07

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 9, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C No. 1640 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. Heard Sri M.V.Raja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri C.Narendra Babu, 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 petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are A2 to A9. A2 and A3 are mother and father of A1. A4 is Brother’s wife of A1. A5 and A6 are sister of A1 and her husband respectively. A7 to A9 are mother, father and brother of A4 respectively. Learned counsel would submit that A7 to A9 are not family members of A1. They are parents and brother of A4. The petitioners have nothing to do with the case. Accused No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. He has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. A1 also filed a petition under Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of the child. A5 and A9 are pursuing their studies. A6 is the husband of the sister of A1, who is working at State Bank of India, Khammam. Learned counsel would submit that without any preliminary enquiry, the case has been lodged against all the family members of the husband as an arm-twist to settle their scores. Learned counsel would submit that report which was presented to the Police by the complainant does not contain any allegations against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 498A of IPC or Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners have never visited the place of the respondent No.2 and stayed under one roof along with the respondent No.2 and A1. The allegations made against the petitioners are vague and omnibus in nature. Learned counsel finally submits that the Police did not make proper investigation and simply filed charge sheet against all the petitioners. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in a casual way without application of Judicial mind. Learned counsel finally submits that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel finally submits that the Police did not make proper investigation and simply filed charge sheet against all the petitioners. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in a casual way without application of Judicial mind. Learned counsel finally submits that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners/A2, A3 and A4. Learned counsel would further submit that complaint would show that A1 developed objectionable relation with A4 who is his brother’s wife due to which the disputes arose between the couple. Learned counsel would further submit that when the complainant questioned the illegal acts of the husband, the parents and brother of A4 also intervened and respondent No.2 and her parents were beaten by them. Learned counsel would further submit that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against all the petitioners and it is not a fit case for quashment. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the respondent No.2 and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 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. 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. 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. 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) 8. 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. 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) 9. 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) 10. Keeping in mind the guiding principles as envisaged in the Judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the factual matrix of the present case has to be scrutinized with great care and caution since the petitioners approached this Court seeking quashment of the case against them. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, there are allegations against A1, A2 and A3 to the effect that they have harassed the respondent No.2 for the sake of additional dowry. There are allegations made against A4 to the effect that at her instance, A1 used to harass respondent No.2 and A4 has some objectionable relation with A1 due to which the relation between A1 and respondent No.2 strained. 11. Coming to the case of A5 and A6, A5 is the married sister of A1 and A6 is her husband. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners, except making omnibus allegations against them, nothing in specific is attributed against them to maintain criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 12. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners, except making omnibus allegations against them, nothing in specific is attributed against them to maintain criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 12. Coming to the case of A7 to A9, except making a casual reference in the complaint that when respondent No.2 questioned the illegal act of her husband maintaining relation with A4, her parents and brother beat her. This allegation made against A7 to A9 is bereft of any other details in the complaint. Needless to say that this is not the information given to the Police by the complainant i.e., the respondent No.2 immediately after the alleged incident. As can be seen from the record, the specific date on which the alleged incident said to have been taken place is also not present in the complaint. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners, A7 to A9 are not the relatives of the husband but they are relatives of the brother’s wife of A1. In that view, on conglomeration of facts and circumstances under which, this case has been emanated, this Court is of the view that continuing criminal proceedings against A5 to A9 is sheer abuse of process of law. 13. In that view, this petition is partly allowed. The case against the petitioners/A5 to A9in C.C No. 1640 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Guntur, Guntur District is hereby quashed. However, the petition with regard to the petitioners/A2 to A4is dismissed and the proceedings against them shall continue. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.