CRLP/2184/2022 of K.Upendra, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.441 of 2019 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code[2] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961[3].

2. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is the husband, Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 is the mother-in-law, Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 is the father-in-law, Petitioner Nos.4 and 5/Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of Respondent No.2.

3. Heard Ms.S.Parineeta, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Inspite of service of notice, none represented Respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the allegations made against the Petitioners are bald and omnibus. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner/Accused No.1 filed a divorce petition in M.C.No.153 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore and the same is pending consideration. It is submitted that, to settle her scores with the Petitioners, Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint by 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’

2 for short ‘IPC’

3 for short ‘D.P.Act’

falsely implicating them. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 never resided with Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 under one roof. Learned counsel would finally submit that, no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioners, as such, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that the charge sheet discloses specific allegations against the Petitioners for the commission of the alleged offence. The veracity of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Point for Determination

6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.441 of 2019 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati?

Determination by the Court

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. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kans Raj v. State Of Punjab[4], wherein, it was heldas follows:- “For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.”

9. In Shaik Arifa v. State of Andhra Pradesh[5], this Court held as follows:

“11. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court categorically held that where the allegations in the report are vague, sweeping and general, except bald allegation that the petitioners supported A.1 to subject the defacto complainant to cruelty, there is absolutely nothing mentioned as against them and no specific act has been attributed to any of the accused.

12. Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that number of cases are registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and there is alarming rise in the said offences. In the complaint filed by the wife, entire family members belonging to the husband are being 4 AIR 2000 SC 2324

5 2022 SCC OnLine AP 2162

roped in only with a view to settle scores as against the other family”.

10. In the instant case, it is alleged in the complaint that, the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 was performed on 22.11.2015 and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 60 sovereigns were given to the Accused towards dowry. After the marriage, Respondent No.2 joined Petitioner/Accused No.1 at Ambur, Tamilnadu State. It is further alleged that, during weekends, they both used to visit the house of Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 and all of them used to abuse Respondent No.2. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to demand her to bring an amount of Rs.1.00 Crore to purchase a house at Bangalore. When she refused to do so, they both used to instigate Accused No.1 to harass her. Accused No.1 having addicted to alcohol, used to subject her to both physical and mental cruelty and necked her out of the house. It is further alleged in the complaint that, when the parents of Respondent No.2 informed about the same to Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, they supported Accused No.1. Even after the counseling given by the Police at Mahila Police Station, Accused No.1 did not mend his ways. When Respondent No.2 phoned Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5, they also used to abuse her. Having no other go, she lodged a complaint against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 for the alleged offences.

11. Admittedly, Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the married sisters of Accused No.1. It is alleged that Accused Nos.4 and 5 used to instigate Accused No.1 in harassing Respondent No.2. Admittedly, Accused Nos.2 to 5

have not resided along with the family of Respondent No.2 under one roof. Petitioner/Accused No.5 has been residing separately with her family. A bare perusal of complaint and the material placed on record would reveal that except a casual reference, there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5. Mere allegation that Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 along with the other Accused harassed Respondent No.2 by demanding additional dowry would not amount to the commission of the alleged offence by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5. As no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5, this Court is of the view that continuation of prosecution against them is an abuse of process of law.

12. The entire allegations are pertaining to Accused Nos.1 to 3. The contention of the Petitioners that after filing of a petition for divorce by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in M.C.No.153 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore, the present complaint has been lodged, is the factual aspect to be decided during trial and the same is not a ground to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 at the threshold. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that there are no specific allegations against all the Petitioners, is not tenable since there are specific overt acts attributed against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the veracity of the said allegations has to be decided during the course of trial. When there is a material to proceed further against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, it is not a fit case to entertain the quashment against them.

However, as discussed above, since there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed by quashing proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.441 of 2019 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code[6] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petition filed by the Accused Nos.1 to 3, is hereby dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________________

Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date:31.12.2024Dinesh

6 for short ‘IPC’

HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.2184 of 2022Dt.31.12.2024

Dinesh