CRLP/3843/2020 of Yalla Sandeep Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.419 of 2020 on the file of the Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam City for the offences registered under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC, 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 3(1)(r)(s) read with 3(2)(va) of SC ST Prohibition of Atrocities Act.

2. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2. The 2[nd]respondent herein is the defacto complainant in F.I.R.No.419 of 2020 on the file of the Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

3. The 2[nd] respondent filed F.I.R.No.419 of 2020 at Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, duly alleging that she belongs to Schedule Tribe and her father is a head constable in police department. At present, she is working as a Mahila police in Sachivalayam at Tagarapuvalasa. The case of the defacto complainant as alleged in the complaint is as follows:

a) In the year 2008, while she was studying M.Sc, one Sandeep (1[st]petitioner/accused No.1) who was working as a clerk in C Section, Collector Office, performed inter caste marriage with the defacto complainant in the presence of both of their parents and elders. The couple were blessed with two children. In 11 years of their conjugal life, the accused No.1 i.e., the husband of the 2[nd] respondent, quarrelled on two occasions with her demanding the dowry. The father of the 2[nd] respondent gave 3 lakhs and gold ornaments to the 1[st] petitioner/accused No.1. Since a year the 1[st]petitioner/accused No.1 again started to harass the 2[nd] respondent for additional dowry and to register the flat and site at Araku belonging to her father in his favour. The 1[st] petitioner also abused the 2[nd] respondent in filthy language in the name of caste and stated that he will marry another woman who belongs to his caste. Due to such harassment, the 2[nd] respondent submitted a report on 01.08.2020 at Mahila Police Station and attended for counselling. However, there is no change in the behaviour of the 1[st] petitioner. As a result, the defacto complainant went to her paternal house along with her children.

b) On 28.08.2020, when the 2[nd] respondent went to the 1[st] petitioner‟s home for taking her children‟s clothes, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in filthy language on her caste name. The 2[nd] respondent approached the Circle Inspector of Arilova Police Station and he allowed the 2[nd] respondent to bring her clothes by arranging security at the house of petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2. The 2[nd] respondent alleged that except her clothes, all other belongings were hidden by her husband/accused No.1. The 2[nd] respondent also alleged in the compliant that the accused No.1 harassed her in workplace by creating nuisance and insulted her before office staff. Hence, she lodged the said F.I.R.No.419 of 2020, dated 02.09.2020.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the 1[st] petitioner is a Government employee and he is working at district Collector Office, Visakhapatam. The 1[st]

petitioner is suffering with serious health problems and his two kidneys were severely damaged. The 2[nd] petitioner i.e., the mother of the 1[st] petitioner donated one kidney to him. The 1[st] petitioner is leading his life in painful manner after kidney transplantation. Now, the health of the 1[st] petitioner is in serious condition as he is suffering with kidney ailments. The 2[nd] respondent has been harassing the 1[st] petitioner after he got ill health and started abusing his family.

5. The main contention of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is that the 2[nd] respondent lodged a false complaint against them and the Police registered the crime without conducting any preliminary enquiry and without verifying the veracity of allegations. The 2[nd] respondent is not residing with the petitioners and she is not willing to lead her marital life with the 1[st] petitioner due to his health condition. The 2[nd] respondent made a false complaint with baseless allegations with an intention to harass the petitioners. The allegations are made without any material evidence. The petitioners never abused the 2[nd] respondent with her caste.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 is that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and that the allegations made against the petitioners do not attract the alleged offences and a case was registered based on the vague allegations to implicate the petitioners in the case. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations made in the FIR as well as the charge sheet do not make out a case against the petitioners. It is unfair to compel the petitioners to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial in the absence of any offences against them.

7. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against Petitioners. He would submit that the allegations made against the petitioners would squarely attract the offence alleged against them and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Point for Determination

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

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 & 2 in F.I.R.No.419 of 2020 on the file of the Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam town and District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC, 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 3(1)(r)(s) read with 3(2)(va) of SC ST Prohibition of Atrocities Act?

Determination by the Court

9. 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.

10. The decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others[1]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. 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 materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a 1 AIR 1992 SC 604

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.”

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[2], 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 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

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[3], 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. 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. 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. 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.1 to the extent that he used to abuse the de facto complainant by demanding additional dowry. All the accusations that have been made, as per the charge sheet, are alleged to have taken place at Bheemasena Apartment, Visalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam City, whereas the defacto complainant was residing at her paternal house.

14. In so far as 2[nd] Petitioner/Accused No.2 is concerned, Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 is the mother of Accused No.1. Except stating that 2[nd]Petitioner/Accused Nos.2 also abused the defacto complainant by her caste and not letting her to enter the house, there is no specific complaint made out as against the petitioners herein. 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 2[nd] petitioners/Accused No.2. All the allegations that were made against them are either vague or general in nature. More so, the allegations in the charge sheet against this petitioner 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 2[nd] Petitioner/Accused No.2 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 partly-allowed. The proceedings against Petitioners/Accused No.2 in F.I.R.No.419 of 2020 on the file of the Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam City for the offences registered under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC, 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 3(1)(r)(s) read with 3(2)(va) of SC ST Prohibition of Atrocities Act, are hereby quashed against the petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 and the petition is dismissed as against the Accused No.1. Accordingly, the Trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the investigation as against the accused No.1.

Conclusion

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

Date: 31.12.2024 KAS

____________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA