High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against accused Nos. 2-4 in a dowry harassment case. The Court held that proceeding against in-laws without specific allegations resulted in abuse of process of law.
Proceedings against accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in C.C.No.587 of 2018 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10226 OF 2018
Between:
...Petitioners/A.2 to A.4
AND
...Respondent/De-facto Complainant
...Respondents
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accu sed Nos.2to 4 in C.C.No.587 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram.
I.A. No.1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay granted on 06.02.2019 in CrI.P.No.10226 of 2018 of this Hon'ble Court pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.
I.A. No.1 OF 2ni«
petiMoner^Loused^oUlS" rrc^o58™of2^ir Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram "
of Grounds'%'^®*Crimina7'""peWion' ''and™®' Memorandum of :rr - ^^,10=1 on The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10226 OF 201«
ORDER;
The present criminal petition is filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.587 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram and to quash the same. The police laid the charge sheet in Crime No.47 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.”) and Sections 3 86 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2
harassing the l^t respondent for additional dowry. Whereas, in the present case, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4, except saying that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 encouraged the accusedNo.l.
- The HonT)le Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam V. The State Of Bihar^ following earlier decisions titled as Geeta Mehrotra & Another v. State of UP & Another^andK. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana^ held that allowingthe prosecution in the absence of clear allegation againstthein-laws of the defacto-complainant would simply result in anabuseof the process of law.
- Therefore, the judgments referred supra, squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Hence,thisCourtis inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2,3 and 4.
- Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against accused Nos.2,3 and 4 in C.C.No.587 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Judicial MagistrateofFirst Class, Bhimavaram, are hereby quashed.
(2022) 6 see 599 h2012) 10 see 241 h2018) 14 see 452
3
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinginthis
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
SD/- S SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
'V
Va SECTION OFFICER
Gkk
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:12/01/2024 -V'-'
ORDER
CRLP.No.10226of 2018
xs
l(§-ft 30 APS) m %
--V
Current S
eatjon
.?f;
V
’taMiwvu
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
2 issues framed by the court
Whether quashing of proceedings is warranted against in-laws broadly accused of instigating dowry harassment in absence of specific allegations.
Whether prosecution of in-laws without specific allegations amounts to abuse of process of law under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam V. The State Of BiharRelied on¶31
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam V. The State Of Bihar
Geeta Mehrotra & Another v. State of UP & AnotherRelied on¶31
Geeta Mehrotra & Another v. State of UP & Another
K. Subba Rao v. The State of TelanganaRelied on¶31
K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Myla Santha Kumari
Myla Satyavwathi
Kollabattula Mary Grace
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
