Partly allowed

Kandoli Sreenivasulu v. Smt. Gone Shanthamma

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024CRLP/13518/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition for quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC regarding matrimonial disputes involving dowry and bigamy, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed proceedings against the husband's relatives (Accused Nos. 7 to 11) due to vague, general allegations constituting abuse of process, but dismissed the petition against the husband (Accused No. 1) where a prima facie case of cruelt

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 (Accused Nos. 7 to 11) in CC No. 388 of 2017 were quashed; petition against Petitioner No. 1 (Accused No. 1) was dismissed.

Kandoli Sreenivasulu Vs Smt. Gone Shanthamma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13518 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kandoli Sreenivasulu, S/o. Anjinaiah. aged 45 years,^{Occ.TeacherR/o.} Neruduppala Village, Gonegandia Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶8

Kandoli Anjinaiah, S/o. Sanjappa, aged 68 years, R/o. Neruduppala Village Gonegandia Mandal, Kurnool District

¶9

Kandoli Bhagyamma, W/o. Anjinaiah aged 62 years, R/o. Neruduppala VillagO, Gonegandia Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶10

K. Ramanjineyulu, S/o.Kistanna, aged 54 years, R/o. Neruduppala Village, Gonegandia Mandal, Kurnool District

¶11

Madiga Sanjanna, S/o. Yellappa, aged 56 years, R/o. Neruduppala Village, Gonegandia Mandal, Kurnool District

¶12

K. Vijay Kumar, S/o. Sandanna, aged 25 years, R/o. Neruduppala Village, Gonegandia Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶13

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos. 1, 7 to 11

¶14

AND

¶15

Smt. Gone Shanthamma, W/o. K. Srinivasulu, Occ. Teacher, R/o. 1-36155, Muneppa Nagar, Yemmiganur Town, Kurnool District.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶17

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Through P.S, Yemmiganur Town,^Kurnool District.

¶18

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶19

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying^{thatinthecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court to call for the records relating to C.C.No. 388 of 2017, on^the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, and quash the same.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the^Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M RAMALINGESWARA REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and^the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of^{Sri.BUTTAVIJAYA} BHASKER, Advocate for the Respondent No.1

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶22

¶23

APHC010950222018

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶25

[3333]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13518/2018

¶31

Between:

¶32

Kandoli Sreenivasulu and Others

¶33

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S)

¶34

AND

¶35

Smt Gone Shanthamma and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶37

1.M RAMALINGESWARA REDDY

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S):

¶39

BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER

¶40

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

¶43

ORDER:-

¶44

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 7 to 11 seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.388 of 2017 on the^file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, Kurnool, wherein charge sheet is filed for the offences under Sections 498-A, 494 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC”) and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act’) of Yemmiganur Town Police Station, Kurnool.

¶45

Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶46

(i) Petitioner No.l/Accused No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.l/defacto-complainant and petitioner Nos.2 to 6/Accused Nos.7 to 11 are the relatives of the petitioner No.1.

¶47

(ii) The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 15.05.2002, as per Hindu Rites and Customs^at Nereduppala Village, Gonegandia Mandal in the presence^{ofelders.Both} were working as Secondary Grade Teachers. At the time of marriage, parents of the respondent No.1 gave cash of Rs.4,00,000/- towards dowry and also presented iy2 thula of gold to the petitioner No.1. After the marriage, the respondent No.1 joined the matrimonial house and lived happily for some time. Out of their marriage, they^{wereblessedwith} one daughter and one son. Suseelamma, who is the cousin of respondent No.1 was living in their house. In that process, petitioner No.1 developed illegal intimacy with Suseelamma and started harassing her both physically

¶48

¶49

and mentally for additional dowry. As such, respondent No.1 was living separately. As per the advice of the elders, they have compromised and accordingly the petitioner No.1 executed a registered gift deed on 29.04.2015 in favour of their children. Thereafter, the petitioner Nos.2 to 6, who are the close relatives of petitioner No.1 performed the marriage of petitioner No.1 and Suseelamma on 17.08.2015.

¶50

(iii) While things stood thus, on 03.01.2016, the respondent^No.1 filed C.C.No.388 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur against the petitioners under^{Sections498-A,494} r/w Section 34 I PC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry^{ProhibitionAct.} Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 filed divorce petition i.e., M.O.P.No.5 of 2016, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge,^{Adoni,andthesame} was decreed exparte by an order dated 16.07.2016. 3. Heard Sri M.Ramalingeswara Reddy, learned counsel for^{thepetitioners,} Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1-State, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that^{thepetitionersare} falsely implicated in this case, and the allegations^{mentionedinthecomplaintdo} not satisfy the ingredients of the offences as alleged in the charge sheet. He further submitted that respondent No.1 lodged a report against the petitioner No.1 in Yemmiganur Town Police Station vide Crime No.139^{of2015underSection} 498-A r/w Section 34-A of IPC, vide C.C.No.25 of 2016. Challenging the said case, the petitioner No.1 filed CrI.P.No.13434 of 2018 before this Court for

¶52

¶53

quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and the same was^{dismissed.Hewould} further submit that once again, C.C.No.388 of 2017^{hasbeenfiledunderSection} 494 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is unsustainable in law for the simple reason that there cannot be two^{casesforthesameoffence} on the same set of allegations. In the presence of elders, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 got executed an agreement (MOD) dated^{24.09.2015tothe} effect that they shall not interfere with each other’s life and not initiate any legal proceedings against each other by registering Gift^Deeds in favour of their children by the petitioner No.1. By suppressing the factum of MOU, the respondent No.1 has filed C.C.No.388 of 2017 on 03.01.2016. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioner No.1 has been paying maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.1. The petitioner No.1 obtained divorce on 16.07.2016 and no appeal has been filed against it. Respondent No.1 did not enter her appearance through counsel, as she is not interested in the marital life and only interested in the property. Therefore, filing of criminal cases against the petitioners is abuse of process of law. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1. In support of his contention. learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana^{andAnother^.}

¶54

Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The truth, or otherwise, of

¶55

Criminal Appeal No.2379 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP.(Crl.) No.4912 of 2022)

¶56

¶57

the said allegations will be revealed during the course^{ofthetrial.Thereareno} grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, at this stage. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶58

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioner No.1 has married another woman by name Suseelamma on 16.08.2015 prior to MOL) and he obtained exparte decree of divorce on 16.07.2016 and there are specific overt acts against the petitioner No.1 and he got second marriage without obtaining divorce. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶59

Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is; ‘Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.388 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, Kurnoolfor the offences under Sections 498A, 494 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act ?’

¶60

A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or^affected so as to 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 aj;)dT)ircumstances^{ofthecase.These}

¶61

¶62

powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse^{ofprocessoflawor} glaring injustice, which are against sound principles^{ofcriminaljurisprudence.}

¶63

Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of^{theprovisionmustbe} present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. 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^paras102and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows :

¶64

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and^ofthe principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section^482of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent^abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure^theendsof justice, though it may not be possible to lay down^anyprecise, 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.

¶65

(1) Where the allegations made in the ifrst information^reportorthe complaint, even if they are taken at their face value^andaccepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any^offenceor make out a case against the accused.

¶66

(2) Where the allegations in the first information^{reportandother} materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by^police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order^ofa Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of^theCode.

¶67

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the^{FIRorcomplaint} and the evidence collected in support of the same do^notdisclose

¶68

2 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶69

¶70

the commission of any offence and make out a case against^the accused.

¶71

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of^theCode.

¶72

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint^aresoabsurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶73

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under^which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution^{andcontinuance} of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶74

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused^andwitha view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶75

We also give a note of caution to the effect that^the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and^that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will^notbe justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability^or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in^theFIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the^courtto act according to its whim or caprice.”

¶76

In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings^initiated in matrimonial

¶77

matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has^{deliverednumerous}

¶78

¶79

decisions. It is relevant to refer to a few, at this^{juncture.TheHon'bleApexCourt}

¶80

¶81

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihai^, held as^follows;

¶82

The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the^husbandin matrimonial disputes, \v/ithout 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 prime facie case is made out against them.

¶83

Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust^Ifthe Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations^ofatrial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest^ina situation where the reiatives of the compiainant's^husband

¶84

are forced to undergo triai. It has been highlighted by^this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading^toan eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. ”

¶85

¶86

In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand^, the Apex Court^heldasunder;

¶87

"24. A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder^Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion and the relevant observations

¶88

^ 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 141 ^(2010) 7 SCC 667

¶89

¶90

of the court are reproduced in para 24 of the said judgment as under:—

¶91

“Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.

¶92

It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the^momentover trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide^andarefiled with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase^{inthenumberof} genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter^ofserious concern.

¶93

The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social^{fiberoffamilylife} is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either^{ontheiradvice} or with their concurrence. The learned members of the^Barwho belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble^{traditionsand} should treat every complaint under section 498-A as^abasichuman problem and must make serious endeavour to help the^partiesin arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem.^Theymust discharge their duties to the best of their abilities^{toensurethatsocial} fiber, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint^shouldnot lead to multiple cases.

¶94

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint^{theimplications} and consequences are not properly visualized by the^complainant

¶95

¶96

¶97

that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close^relations.

¶98

The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth^isaherculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely^carefuland cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial^cases.The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations^whohadbeen living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized 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 relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. ”

¶99

¶100

For better appreciation, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted^hereunder:

¶101

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the^{relativeofthe} husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶102

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a)anv willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(^harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to

¶103

¶104

coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

¶105

In the case on hand, a perusal of the material on record would go to show that all the accusations are against petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 to the extent that he used to harass the respondent No.1 both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry, thereby subjecting her to cruelty. It is further evident that petitioner No.1 developed illegal intimacy with Suseelamma^{andmarriedher} without obtaining divorce. Hence, the evidence on record would show that she was subjected to physical and mental torture all throughout^hermarried life and several instances of abuse and torture, as mentioned in FIR only by the 1®‘ petitioner/husband.

¶106

In so far as the remaining accused i.e., accused Nos.7 to 11 in C.C.No.388 of 2017 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the accused Nos. 7 to 11 in the petition. He further submits that where a large number of family members had been included in FIR by casually mentioning their names, but not disclosing their active involvement, cognizance of the matter against them would not be justified. Under such conditions, cognizance^{wouldresultinabuseofthe} judicial process. In this regard, he placed reliance in Kahkashan Kausar (supra) and he prayed to the Court to allow the criminal petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6/accused Nos.7 to 11. In order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6, thereby implicating them by

¶107

¶108

¶109

initiating a case under Section 498-A of IPC, is nothing^{butabuseofprocessof} law and travesty of justice. Furthermore, time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court categorically held that a tendency has been developed for roping in all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment^{madeinordertobrowbeat} and pressurize the immediate family members of the^husband. In the present case, no specific instances have been mentioned in the charge sheet against the Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/Accused Nos.7 to 11. All the allegations made against them are either vague or general in nature. More so, the allegations in the charge sheet against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 would not come^{withinthedefinition} of cruelty’ as defined under Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/Accused Nos.7 to 11 is nothing but an abuse of process of law by the Court.

¶110

Having regard to the rival submissions and material^onrecordand in view of the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion^{thatnocaseismade} out against petitioner Nos.2 to 6. Therefore, it is fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6/Accused Nos.7 to 11 in the present petition.

¶111

In the result, the present criminal petition is allowed in part. The proceedings against Petitioner Nos.2 to 6/Accused Nos.7^to11 in C.C.No.388 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under^{Sections498-A,494} r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. However, the petition against the petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶112

¶113

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall

stand closed.

SDI- U.SRIDEVI

ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//