Partly allowed

Nimmagadda Rama Krishna v. the State Sub Inspector of Police

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2022CRLP/2455/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order partly allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings for vague and general allegations under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but proceeded with the trial for Section 324 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of C.C.No.2472 of 2020 to the extent of offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Nimmagadda Rama Krishna Vs the State Sub Inspector… — Domestic Violence | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri Nimmagadda Ramakrishna, party-in-person and learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶5

The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.2472 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 324 IPC read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶6

The allegations against the petitioner, in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet, are that the petitioner, suspecting the fidelity of the de facto complainant had started torturing her and used to talk indecently with the colleagues of the de facto complainant and with her relatives. Further, the petitioner continued to harass the de facto complainant physically and mentally after she had retired from her job in the Women’s College, Rajamahendravaram, in December 2018. The petitioner is also said to have thrown a teapoy on the de facto complainant on 13.05.2020, due to which, she had suffered a fracture on her leg as well as her finger. Nine witnesses were shown as witnesses in the list of witnesses.

¶7

The petitioner has filed the present petition to quash C.C.No.2472 of 2020.

¶8

Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022

¶9

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that the allegations in the complaint as well as the charge sheet are false. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the allegations are vague and general and no specifics, of any nature, have been set out either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. The petitioner contends that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the charge sheet without application of mind and in a routine manner.

¶11

The petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur vs. The State of Punjabe¹ ; Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and Ors.,² and Geeta Mehrotra and Anr., vs. State of U.P., and Anr .,³

¶12

The de facto complainant was impleaded as the 2^nd respondent by order of this Court dated 28.07.2022. This Court, on 01.09.2022, had recorded that the notice on the de facto complainant had been served and the matter would be heard on merits. As there has been no appearance for the de facto complainant till now, the matter was heard and reserved for orders.

¶13

A perusal of the allegations relating to Section 498-A IPC, in the charge sheet, would show that the allegations are vague and general in nature. The essential allegation is that the petitioner, suspecting the fidelity of the de facto complainant, had harassed the de facto

¶14

1 1960 AIR 862 = 1960 SCR (3) 311

¶15

2 (2005) 6 SCC 281

¶16

3 (2012) 10 SCC 741

¶17

RRR,J 3 Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022

¶18

complainant physically and mentally. There are no details as to when and why the petitioner is said to have suspected the fidelity of the de facto complainant, the dates or details of the harassment mental and physical, meted out by the petitioner on the de facto complainant.

¶19

It is now well settled in Kahkashan Kausar and Ors., vs. State of Bihar and Ors.,⁴ and Preeti Gupta and Anr., vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.,⁵ that general and omnibus allegations without specifics do not make out an offence under Section 498-A IPC. As noticed above, as there are no specific allegations but only general, vague and omnibus allegations in the present case, the case against the petitioner to the extent of Section 498-A IPC would have to be quashed.

¶20

The allegations in the complaint and the charge sheet only speak of cruelty on the de facto complainant on account of the suspicion of the petitioner regarding the fidelity of the de facto complainant. There is no allegation that the petitioner had demanded and sought additional dowry or that the cruelty was meted out on the de facto complainant for the purpose of demanding dowry. Further, the allegation that dowry was given, relates to the year 1980. In the circumstances, no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶21

There is a specific allegation against the petitioner that on 13.05.2020, the petitioner had beaten the de facto complainant with a teapoy in anger due to which the de facto complainant had suffered a

¶22

4 (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶23

5 (2010) 7 SCC 667

¶24

RRR,J 4 Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022

¶25

fracture in her leg and finger. The petitioner relying upon the wound certificate would submit that the de facto complainant had refused to get her fractured leg and finger X-rayed. This would mean that the de facto complainant had not suffered any such injury and the allegation against the petitioner is a false allegation.

¶26

The allegation relating to the offence under Section 324 IPC would require further trial before any conclusion can be drawn in this regard.

¶27

Accordingly, this criminal petition is partly allowed quashing C.C.No.2472 of 2020 to the extent of the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, the trial against the offence under Section 324 IPC shall go on.

¶28

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶30

2^nd December, 2022 Js.

¶31

RRR,J 5 Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022

¶32

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶33

Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022