Allowed

P. Sudheer Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Nov 2022CRLP/1341/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the criminal complaint filed against the petitioner (Accused No.4) for Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act sections. Relying on Kahkashan Kausar, the court held that general omnibus allegations against the petitioner without specific roles or dates did not warrant prosecution against him.

What did the court decide?

Complaint in Crime No.96 of 2021 dated 11.11.2021 quashed against the petitioner; investigation against other accused continues.

P. Sudheer Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1341 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is Accused No.4 in Crime No.96 of 2021 of Kalagiri Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, for offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

The 2^nd respondent has been served with notice in March, 2022. However, there is no appearance on her behalf.

¶6

The gravamen of the charge in the complaint is that

¶7

the husband and other family members of the family of the husband, including the petitioner, who is the elder brother of the husband of the de facto complainant, had been harassing the de facto complainant, to bring additional dowry.

¶8

The complainant states that the de facto complainant had married the younger brother of the petitioner about six years back. At the time of marriage, Rs.6 lakhs is said to have been paid as dowry. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have demanded Rs.5 lakhs to do real estate business for the husband of the de facto complainant, due to which the jewellery of the de facto complainant is said to have been taken away. Again after a year or so, the petitioner is said to have come to

¶9

¶10

the house of the de facto complainant’s husband and demanded another sum of Rs.4 lakhs. There are further allegations against the other accused in the crime.

¶11

The present application has been filed for quashing the complaint against the petitioner.

¶12

Sri K.Sathakarni, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the Area Hospital, Kavali stating that the petitioner and his brother are both suffering from Retinitis Pigmentosa, which is a degenerative eye disease which would result in a progressive loss of vision by the person suffering from this disease.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de facto complainant had no compliant against anybody till the said disease came to light. Immediately after she came to know that both the petitioner and his brother are suffering from such disease, the de facto complainant had sought separation with huge amount of money being paid to her. As the family of the petitioner had refused to agree to such demands, the present complaint has been filed.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out that the allegations against the petitioner herein are

¶15

¶16

that he had made general demands for dowry and no specifics relating to the time, date or place where such demands were raised have been set out in the complaint. He would further submit that complaint does not anywhere state that cruelty or harassment had been visited upon the 2^nd respondent by the petitioner herein.

¶17

The learned counsel would submit that in these circumstances, no case is made out against the petitioner. He would also rely upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors¹ ., to contend that in such circumstances, the complaint requires to be quashed.

¶18

The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that there are allegations against the petitioner to the extent of stating that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on one instance and another a sum of Rs.4 lakhs by going to the house of the de facto complainant’s husband.

¶19

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar

¶20

and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., are held as follows:

¶21

The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed

¶22

1 (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

¶26

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.

¶27

The case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was a

¶28

case where the matter was pending at the stage of trial. In the

¶29

¶30

present case even though the complaint is still under investigation, there can be no improvement over the complaint in such cases and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would squarely apply to the present case also.

¶31