High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners alleging dowry harassment and cheating under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding allegations too vague to sustain trial.
Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.514/2017 and D.V.C.No.12/2018 quashed against petitioners; pending misc. applications closed.
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 :: AMARAVATI
MONDAY. THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
/.
O
.
111A h
<f
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 4696 OF 2018 AND 3026 OF 2019
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4696 OF 2018
Between:
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
...Respondents/Defacto Complainant
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 in C.C.No.514 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First ClasSy Kavali.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018
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 in C.C.No. 514 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3026 OF 2019
Between:
...Petitioners/Respondent Nos.1 to 3 AND
...Respondent/Petitioner
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 in D.V.C.No.12 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.
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 dispense with the filing the certified copy of the petition in DVC No.12 of 2018 on the file ofAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.
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 stay all further proceedingsinDVC.No.12 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusingtheMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Jagadeeswar, Advocate for the Petitioners and the SpecialAssistantPublic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in both the petitions and of Sri Pavani Siva Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
1
APHC010145222019
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 NOS: 4696/2018 and 3026/2019
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4696/2018
Between:
Murarisetty Pencharla Narasimha Rao and ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) Others
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S):
1.G JAGADEESWAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PAVANI SIVA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3026/2019
Between:
Murarisetty Penchala Narasimha Rao, and ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) others AND
State of AP and others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
2
1.G JAGADEESWAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.V R MAC HAVA RAM
The Court made the following;
3
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Petitions i.e., CrI.P.Nos.4696 of 2018and3026of2019 are preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.514 of 2017 and D.V.C.No.12of2018on the file the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali respectively.
- Since these petitions are preferred by the same petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and the complaint was preferred by the defacfo-complainantwho filed both C.C. and D.V.C., these Criminal Petitions are disposed of by way of a Common Order.
- The accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the petitioners herein, are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the de-facto complainant/2 nd respondent, respectively.
- Brief contents of the charge sheet are that, The marriage of the defacfo-complainant was performed with Murarisetty Penchala Abhilash at Krishnam Rajeswaramma Kalyana Mandapam, Kavali on 21.04.2016 in the presence of theelders.Atthetimeof marriage, the parents of the defacfo-complainant gaveRs.10,00,000/-towards dowry and presented 40 sovereigns of gold and also gave 04.40 acres of land, situated at Chinthalapalem, Jaladanki Mandal. Prior to marriage, as Accused No.1, who is father-in-law of defacfo-complainant, made the parents of
4
defacfo-complainant believe that he would execute Rs.1.50 Crore worth property in the name of LW4 i.e., his son, the parents of the defactocomplainant accepted for the marriage. After the marriage, defactocomplainant joined with her husband at Nellore and lived happily for some days. Subsequently, she came to know that her husband purchased a house at Bangalore with his own salary amount and by paying monthly EMIs. She also came to know that the accused executed the said house in the joint name of her husband and Accused No.2. It is further allegedthatAccusedNos.1 to 3 colluded with each other intentionally and avoided to execute properties in the name of LW4 and also taken gold ornaments of the c/efacfo-complainant. When the c/efacfo-complainant questioned the same,theaccusedharassed her both mentally and physically and further demanded to bring additional dowry from her parents. Further, accused also abused the defactocomplainant in filthy language and demanded to bring additional dowry to continue her matrimonial life with her husband. 4. The same allegations are reiterated in the D.V.C. also by the de-facto complainant.
- The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are falsely implicated in the present cases. The 1 St petitioner/accused No.1 is a retired bank employee and the defactocomplainant and her husband never lived with them and the defactocomplainant used to live at Bangalore since his son has been working as
5
Software Engineer there. Immediately, after marriage, upon instigation of the parents of the defacfo-complainant, the defacfo-complainant started demanding the petitioners for partition of properties. The 3^^ petitioner is working at Hyderabad and she never resided along with her brother i.e., LW4. The son of the 1®^ petitioner purchased a flat at Bangalore jointly along with the 2^^ petitioner for the sake of subsidy and reductionofinterestrateandshe never have any intention of cheating or to deceive her own son. The complaint filed by the c/efacfo-complainant is without any prima facie proof or record and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
- On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2^^ respondent contended that the alleged acts of the petitionersaresufficienttoconclude that the petitioners committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 498-A of PC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for 2^^ respondent.
- Having heard the submissions made by Mr.G.Jagadeeswar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Pavani Siva Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de-facto complainant and on perusalofthematerialavailable on record, the point that arises for considerationisasfollows:
"Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.514 of 2017 andD.V.C.No.12 of 2018 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
6
Kavali, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdictionunderSection 482 ofCr.P.C.?"
- A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited oraffected 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 and circumstancesofthecase.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 the various relevant 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 Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482oftheCodewhichwehave 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 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 shouldbeexercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do
1 AIR 1992 SC 604
7
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
8
“18. The above-mentioned decisions dearly demonstratethatthiscourt has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicatingrelativesof the husband in matrimonial disputes, v/ithout analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as wellastheaccused. 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 thehusbandwhenno prime facie case is made out against them. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstancesandin the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannotmanifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant'shusbandareforcedto undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittalalsoinflictssevere scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. ’’
In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand^, the Apex Courtheldasunder:
tt24. A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder MohanGoswamiv.State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCO 1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion andtherelevant
^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 ^ (2010) 7 see 667
9
observations of the court are reproduced in para 24 of the said judgment as under:—
“30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even 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.
10
Keeping in view the above principles, would liketoexaminethecase
on hand.
- As per the report given by the cfefacfo-complainant, the allegation made against the accused are that her marriage was performedon21.04.2016with LW4 i.e., Murarisetty Penchala Abilash, who is the son of the Accused Nos.1 and 2. The specific case of the defacfo-complainant is that, at the time of marriage. Accused No.1 promised to execute a propertyworth of Rs.1.50 crore in the name of her husband, but subsequently,accusedfailedtoexecute the same and she was harassed both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry. It is further stated that her husband was working at Banglore and that he purchased a House at Bangalore and the sqme was registered in
11
the name of her husband and Accused No.2 jointly by cheating her husband. When she demanded to return the said house, accusedNos.1and2abused her and her husband. Hence, the present complaint and the same was registered for the offences punishable under Sections420and498-AI.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
- For better appreciation of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to extract Sections 498-A and 420 of I.P.C., as under;
'498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjectingherto cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the 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."
- A perusal of Section 498-A IPC shows that when a marriagewoman was subjected to cruelty by her husband or her relatives both mentally and physically, the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC wouldattract.
- Section 420 of I.P.C. deals with punishment for the offence of 'cheating’.
Cheating is defined under Section 415 of I.P.C anditisasfollows;
“415. Cheating:- Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived,andwhichactor omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat”.
The essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating are;
12
There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
(a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) The person so deceived should be intentionally inducedtodooromittodo anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
(Hi) in cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omissionshouldbeone which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
“An offence of cheating cannot be said to have beenmadeoutunless the following ingredients are satisfied:
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or
(Hi) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.
For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation.Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out.
An offence of cheating may consist of two classes ofcases:
(1) where the complainant has been induced fraudulently or dishonestly. Such is not the case here;
(2) When by reason of such deception, the complainanthasnotdone or omitted to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he was not deceived or induced by the accused."
' (2009) 3 see 78
13
14
accused intentionally registered the property jointly. It is an admitted fact that son of Accused No.1 purchased the house jointly inhisnameandinthename of Accused No.2 before marriage itself. In such a case the de-facto complainant cannot claim that her husband was cheatedbyhisparentsand got registered the flat in the name of Accused No.2.
- Hence, entire recitals of the complaint filed by the defacfo-complainant show that there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners herein that in what way she was harassed by the petitionersthattoobothmentally and physically. As discussed above, it is also notspecificallymentionedthat which property worth Rs.1.50 crore will be registered in the name of her husband, there is no written proof with regard to the promise made by the Accused No.1 that he will register the said property.
15
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this petition shall stand closed.
SOI- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
To,
BSV
vna
HIGH COURT
DATED:09/09/2024
COMMON ORDER
CRLP.Nos.4696 of 2018 and 3026 of 2019
OF
2 6 OCT 2C2'i c;\miIIJ;
. Current Section
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS’
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in matrimonial dispute cases are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Whether the allegations against the petitioners disclose a prima facie case of offence under Sections 498-A IPC and 420 IPC.
Whether allowing the petitioners to undergo criminal trial results in abuse of process of the Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and another v. Bhajan LalExplained¶82
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of BiharReferred¶96
Kahkashan Kausar@ Sonam v. State of Bihar
Preeti Gupta v. State of JharkhandExplained¶99
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Murarisetty Penchala Narasimha Rao
Murarisetty Lakshmi Prasanna
Murarisetty Penchala Madhusudhana Rao
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Murarisetty Revathi
V. SUJATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
