Quash petition by five accused facing dowry harassment charges filed on the complaint of the husband's wife. The court found only omnibus allegations against the relatives and quashed proceedings against Accused Nos.2 to 5, while continuing the case against Accused No.1 and dispensing with his personal appearance owing to cancer.
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 :: AMARAVATl fs
MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
O
\0
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1233 OF 2019
Between:
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of JudicatureofAndhraPradesh At Amaravati
...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 pleased to quash the proceedings inCCNo.329/2018on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District
I.A. NO: 2 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 theinterimorderdated 28.2.2019, passed in lA No. 1 of 2019 in CrI.P. No.1233of2019
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 stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners/ Accused in CC No. 329/2018onthefileof the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District during the pendency of the Criminal Petition before this Hon'ble Court
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusingtheMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Doddala Prudhvi Teja , Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following ORDER :
r
APHC010057552019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333]
MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1233/2019
Between:
S.lakshmana Rao and Others
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S)
AND
State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.DODDALA PRUDHVI TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
The Court made the following:
I y^-/ /
VS,J Crl.PNo.1233 of 2019
2
/-A^<ii#^-.'-><i-;>'''5f--
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 ofCriminalProcedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedingsinC.C.No.329of2018on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chepurupalli, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.”) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct.
- Petitioners herein are arrayed as the accused Nos.1 to 5. Respondent No.2 is the c/e-facfo-complainant. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint stating that marriage of the defactocomplainant with Accused No.1 took place on 22.06.2003 as per the Hindu rites and customs. Since it was a love marriage, she did not bring any dowry. Following the marriage, she lived with her in-laws (Accused Nos.2 to 5) at Ambedkar Colony, Cheepurupalliand begotten a male child.Duetoinsufficient space, accused No.2 directed the complainant and theaccusedNo.1tolivein a rented house and return the house after the marriageofaccusedNo.3was arranged. On that both the defacto-complainant andAccusedNo.1 resided in a rented house at Ramanjaneya colony. When she requestedAccusedNo.1 to take her back to the in-laws' house, he demandedRs.3lakhsfrom her parents to facilitate Accused No.3's marriage. The complainant further alleges that Accused No.1 returns home in a drunken state and beat indiscriminately and subjected her to mental agony by demanding dowry,whenshevisitedher in-laws' house. Accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly continued to harass her accusing her for not bringing any dowry and threatened to arrange Accused
Contd...
VS,J Crl.PNo.1233 of 2019
3
No.rs marriage with another woman who could get more dowry. Accused Nos.4 and 5 also allegedly abused the complainant, stating that if Accused No.1 married to another woman, she would bring a higher dowry. Accused No.3 marriage was performed in the year 2016 but Accused No.3 and her husband still live at the complainant's in-laws' house. The complainant further stated that all accused members demanded Rs.3 lakhs as dowry, and when she was unable to meet demands, they forcibly expelled her from the house, throwing out her belongings. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, after the marriage of the defactocomplainant with the 1"' petitioner/Accused No.1 they lived in a rented accommodation in Ramanjaneya Colony, Cheepurupalli. Out of their wedlock, they begotten one male child. Over the time, financial difficulties led to marital discord. The 1^‘ petitioner proposed to live with the 2^'" petitioner but the 2"^^ respondent bluntly refused. The 4'*^ petitioner who married the 5‘^ petitioner in 1996, has lived separately with their children and has no connection to the 1®‘ petitioner’s family matters. Moreover the 3'^'^ petitioner married one Karagana Simhachalam on 25.08.2016 and has lived with her in-laws since then. As the 1®' petitioner and the 2"®' respondent/defacfocomplainant lived happily in a rented house with their male child aged 14 years, the other petitioners are no way connected with their family affairs, Despite initially living together for a period of eight (08) years, the 2"" respondent/defecto-complainant developed a drinking habit and engaged in extramarital relationships with individuals including Rambabu (a Panchayat
Contd...
VS,J Crl.PNo.1233 of 2019
4
E.O.) and Pisini Laxmana Rao, among others. Upon noticingthesame,when the 1®* petitioner questioned the acts, she kept thedeaffearandcontinuedto maintain the same for two years. The 1®* petitionerfaced severe mental distress due to the 2"^ respondent's conduct and wasoftendeniedfoodand basic needs. This situation resulted in significant hardship and sleepless nights for the 1®* petitioner. Hence, prays to allow the petition.
- The learned counsel for the petitioners also filed memo dated 09.09.2024 along with Lok Adalat award, complaint in DVC and medical report of the petitioner No.1.
(i) Wherein the lok adalat award was passed as follows;
...1. The petitioner and respondent are agreed to lead conjugal life.
(ii) As the 2"^^ respondent is not in a position tomaintainherselfandher son, she filed D.V.C No.2 of 2018 seeking share in the house of the petitioners under Section 17 of Protection of Woman from DomesticViolenceActand compensation under Section 20 of the Act.
(iii) As per the Medical report of the 1®‘ petitionerdated 13.02.2024 it appears that the 1®‘ petitioner is suffering from “SquamousCellCarcinoma”, which is nothing but Cancer.
i. j
\
VS,J Crl.PNo.1233 of 2019
5
- 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
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.329 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act?
Contd...
L
VS,J Crl.PNo.1233 of 2019
6
Determination by the Court
- A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limitedoraffectedsoasto 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.
- The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ 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 thevariousrelevant 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 Article226orthe inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code whichwehave extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such powercouldbe 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 AIR 1992 SC 604
Contd...
VS,J CrI.P No. 1233 of 2019
7
VS,J Crl.PNo.1233 of 2019
8
(emphasis supplied)
“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstratethatthis court has at numerous instances expressed concern overthe misuse of section 498A IRC 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 manifestfromthe said judgments that false implication by way of generalomnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result In misuse of the process of law.
"2022 LiveLaw(SC) 141
VS,J Crl.PNo.1233 of 2019
9
Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warnedthe courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-lawsofthe husband when no prima facie case is made out againstthem. 22.Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributedtotheaccused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., generaland omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where therelativesof the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, thatacriminaltrial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. ”
(emphasis supplied)
In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand^, the Apex Courtheldasunder:
“30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in theheatofthe moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.Wecome
^(2010) 7 see 667
VS,J Crl.PNo.1233 of 2019
<V
10
across a large number of such complaints which arenoteven 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.
VSJ Crl.PNo.1233 of 2019
11
complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to bescrutinized 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 relationshad to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin thechancesof amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Contd...
VS,J CrI.PNo.1233 of 2019
fe-
12
the petitioners herein to explain the same. Except omnibus allegations, there is absolutely no specific accusation against the petitioners.
- Time and again the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court categorically held that a tendency has been developed for ropinginalltherelativesofthe husband in dowry harassment made in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband. No specific instanceshavebeenmentioned in the charge sheet against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5. All the allegations that were made against them are either vague or general in nature. More so, the allegations in the charge sheet against these petitioners would not come within the definition of ‘cruelty’ as definedunderSection498-AIPC. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 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 processoftheCourtandtosecure the ends of justice.
VS,J Crl.PNo.1233 of 2019 13
Accused No.1. In view of the Memo filed on behalf of the petitioners, as the 1 St petitioner is suffering from “Squamous Cell Carcinoma”, which is nothing but Cancer and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is suffering from Cancer the presence of the 1®* petitioner is dispensed with, until and unless his presence is required.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall standclosed.
SDI- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
5. THREE CD COPIES
TAC
HIGH COURT
DATED:09/09/2024
ORDER
CRLP.No.1233 of 2019
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings in C.C.No.329/2018 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed against Accused Nos.1 to 5?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and othersRelied on¶9
AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of BiharRelied on¶10
2022 LiveLaw(SC) 141
Preeti Gupta v. State of JharkhandRelied on¶11
(2010) 7 SCC 667 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
S.Lakshmana Rao
Saketi Geddamma
Karagana Adilakshmi
Saketi Rama Rao
Saketi Sarojini
State of Andhra Pradesh
V Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
