Allowed

Bodagala Venkatamma, v. The State

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2023CRLP/5149/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal petition to quash FIR proceedings against accused spouses' parents based on omnibus allegations under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, citing lack of specific overt acts leading to abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1889/2019 quashed insofar as petitioners (Accused 2 & 3) are concerned; criminal petition allowed.

Bodagala Venkatamma, Vs The State — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5149 of 2020

¶2

Between:-

¶3

Bodagala Venkatamma & another

¶4

… Petitioners/A.2 & A.3

¶5

And

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor & another

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms.Sodum Anvesha Counsel for the 1^st Respondent : Learned Public Prosecutor Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent : Mr.Marri Venkata Ramana

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent-State and Mr.Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant.

¶11

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1889/2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District.

¶12

The petitioners herein are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 & 3 in the above

¶13

said case for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶14

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners, while drawing the attention of this Court to the complaint dated 13.06.2019, inter alia contends that the marriage of the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant was performed with Accused No.1 on 20.05.2011, they lived together happily for some time and blessed with a son. She submits that thereafter some disputes arose

¶16

between the de facto complainant and the Accused No.1. Be that as it may. She submits that referring to certain incidents allegedly occurred during the year 2013, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint making allegations against Accused No.1 as also petitioners herein/Accused Nos.2 & 3, who are mother and father of Accused No.1 and the same was registered as Cr.No.45 of 2019 on the file of Women Police Station, Nellore. The learned counsel submits that the de facto complainant also made certain allegations against her sister-in-law, who is arrayed as Accused No.4 and the quash petition i.e., Crl.P.No.4217 of 2020 filed by her was allowed on contest by an order dated 09.02.2021. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts have been attributed against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3, they are no way connected with

¶17

the alleged offences and only with a view to harass them, they have been implicated in a false case. The learned counsel in support of her contentions

¶18

placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶19

Geeta Mehrotra & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another [(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741] and Kahkashan Kausar alias

¶20

¶21

Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [AIR 2022 Supreme Court

¶22

820] . The learned counsel submits that on mere omnibus allegations, no case can be made out against the petitioners i.e., Accused Nos.2 & 3, continuation of proceedings initiated against them tantamounts to abuse of process of Law and therefore the Criminal Petition may be allowed by quashing the proceedings under challenge.

¶23

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are serious in nature and therefore it would be appropriate that the matter be left to the Court below to examine the allegations made against them by conducting Trial. He accordingly submits that the Criminal Petition may be dismissed.

¶24

Mr.Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant while supporting the contentions advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in the light of the specific allegations made against the petitioners i.e., Accused Nos.2 & 3, it is essential that the Trial Court be allowed to proceed with the Trial, instead of quashing the proceedings as sought for by the petitioners. The learned counsel further submits that the reference to the earlier incidents as narrated by the de facto complainant/2^nd respondent would make it clear that she had been subjected to harassment, mental agony for a long period and ultimately the 2^nd respondent had lodged the complaint

¶25

¶26

under the circumstances, which are set out therein. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant also submits that the order passed in Crl.P.No.4217 of 2020 dated 09.02.2021 may not be treated as precedent, more particularly, in view of the observations made by the learned Judge while disposing of the said Criminal Petition. The learned counsel submits that in the light of the serious allegations made against the petitioners herein i.e., A.2 & A.3, unless they prove their innocence by facing the Trial, no relief, much less the relief, as prayed for can be granted. Making the said submissions, he urges for dismissal of the present quash petition.

¶27

This Court has considered the submissions made by the both sides, perused the complaint and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶28

From a reading of the complaint, no doubt there is reference to incidents stated to have occurred in the months of May & June, 2013, however the complaint was lodged in the year 2019 mentioning the incident alleged to have occurred on 20.05.2019. It would also appear that in the meanwhile, the de facto complainant’s husband got issued a notice, calling upon the 2^nd respondent to join him. Be that as it may. In the complaint, no specific allegations, much less, overt acts were made against the petitioners herein. It is also curious to note that no complaint is immediately lodged

¶29

after the alleged incident dated 20.05.2019 and on 13.06.2019 i.e., after more than 3 week the F.I.R was registered, wherein no reasons were stated

¶30

¶31

for the delay in reporting. Even Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.1 is nothing but reiteration of the contents of the complaint dated 13.06.2019. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that except making omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners herein, which would attract the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The 2^nd respondent made omnibus allegations against the petitioners i.e., A.2 & A.3 and in the considered opinion of this Court on mere omnibus allegations no case can be made out against them. For obvious reasons, they have been implicated in the alleged offence, without any bona fides. Even otherwise, prima facie it would appear that specific allegations were made against the 2^nd respondent’s husband/A.1 and as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners no specific overt acts were attributed to A.2 & A.3 and in the absence of same, no case can be made out against them.

¶32

In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra referred to supra, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:-

¶33

“….It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact

¶34

¶35

discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.” (Para 25)

¶36

10. In a recent decision in Kahkashan Kausar referred to supra, the

¶37

Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to the legal position in Geeta Mehrotra ,

¶38

in the facts and circumstances of the case, was pleased to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants therein, inter alia, holding that 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was also pleased to make certain observations to the effect that general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of Law.

¶39

In the light of the above legal position, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the conclusions arrived at supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case can be made out against the petitioners on the basis of omnibus allegations. The proceedings under challenge, if allowed to continue would constitute abuse process of Law.

¶40

¶41