Allowed

Matla Priyanka v. State of Ap.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Aug 2024CRLP/4698/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition seeks quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a sister-in-law, accused solely on vague and general allegations of instigating cruelty without specific overt acts, following Supreme Court precedents on preventing abuse of process in matrimonial disputes.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2017 are quashed as against the petitioner/accused No. 4.

Matla Priyanka Vs State of Ap. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

■ ■ %

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4698 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

Matia Priyanka, W/o Prakash, Aged about 30 years, Kalyani, Gavara by Caste, R/o Flat No.402, Kalyani Empire Apartments, Beside Supreme Hotel, R.K.Beach road, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

...Petitioners/Accused 4

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. Through Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole II Town P.S. Guntur District.

¶12

Matia Parimala, W/o Srikanth, Aged about 25 years, Gavara, Gavarai and Vadugar, R/o Flat No. G-21, Madavadhara, Layndsam Green Apartments, Visakhapatnam.

¶13

...Respondent/Complainant

¶14

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^inC.C.No.428 of 2017 on the file of I Addl., Chief Metropolitan, Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶16

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 of all further proceedings including appearance in C.C. No. 428 of 2017 on the file of I Add!., Chief Metropolitan, Magistrate, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the quash petition.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶18

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 CC No. 428 of 2017 on the file of the 1®' Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above Criminal^Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vijaya Kumar Naidana, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of^Sri Devi Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

¶21

APHC010287602018

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶23

[3333]

¶24

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4698/2018

¶28

Between:

¶29

Matia Priyanka

¶30

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶31

AND

¶32

State of AP and others

¶33

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶35

1.VIJAYA KUMAR NAIDANA

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶37

1.KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR

¶38

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶39

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam againstjhe petitioner/accused No.4 registered^{fortheoffences} punishable under Section 498-A, 324 IPC and Sections^{3&4ofD.P.Act.}

¶44

The de-facto complainant/2"^ respondent lodged a report^before the concerned police on 05.10.2016, alleging that her husband along with his parents and sister harassed her both mentally and physically and subjected her to cruelty demanding additional dowry and also attributing infertility. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is the father-in-law,^accused No.3 is the mother-in-law and accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the de-facto complainant. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime^{No.198of2016has} been registered on the file of Maharanipeta Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigation revealed that the marriage of the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 took place on 04.06.2015 in the presence of elders from both sides and that the parents of the de facto complainant had paid Rs.10 lakhs as dowry and adorned her daughter with 50 tulas of gold and paid Rs.1 lakh towards Adapaduchu katnam and also presented^{articlesworth} Rs.3,00,000/-. Accused No.1 is a habitual drunkard and he developed an imaginary suspicion towards his wife’s character since their marriage and has been thrashing her frequently and harassing her, attributing infertility for not

¶45

¶46

¶47

conceiving a child since after one year of their marriage.^Theparents of accused No.1, i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3 supported him^{whenheharassedthe} de-facto complainant. On 06.08.2016, accused No.4,^who is the sister of accused No.1, came from Hyderabad and she also instigated^accusedNo.1 in harassing the de-facto complainant. The investigation^{furtherrevealedthaton} the night of 08.08.2016 at about 10.00 pm, accused^{No.1severelybeatthe} de-facto complainant and inflicted burn injury on her^{lefthandandthrashed} her head towards gas stove in the kitchen. On hearing her cries, their neighbor (L.W.8) came out and the de-facto complainant^{informedherabout} the situation. The brother of the de-facto complainant requested the neighbor to stay with his sister till his parents come. Then,^accusedNo.1 left the defacto complainant alone in their flat and went to Flat^No.402,where his parents reside. The parents of the de-facto complainant^{arrivedandshifted} the de-facto complainant to KGH for treatment. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet stating^{thataccusedNo.1} is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 498-A^and324 I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and accused^{Nos.2to4areliablefor} punishment for the offences under Sections 498-A I.P.C.^{andSections3&4} of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶48

that the 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 submits petitioner is a married woman and she does not reside^{alongwithaccused} No.1 and the de-facto complainant and that she has^{beenfalselyimplicatedin} the case. He further submits that except making vague and omnibus

¶49

¶50

allegations, there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner/accused No.4. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accusedNo.4.

¶51

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2 nd respondent submitted that truth or otherwise of the allegations against the petitioner has to be decided during the course of trial and at this stage, this Court cannot look into those aspects and come to a conclusion that the allegations are omnibus in nature and quash the proceedings.

¶52

Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for 2"^ respondent.

¶53

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record. the point that arises for consideration is as follows;

¶54

‘‘Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2017 on the file of learned^I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam,^isliabletobe quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482^{ofCr.P.C.?”}

¶55

Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court^{orotherwisetosecure} the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry^{thatorderintoeffect.} If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be

¶56

¶57

useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists^{fortheadvancementof} justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority^{soastoproduce} injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that^{abuse.Intheabsenceof} such power the administration of law would fail to^{servethepurposeforwhich} alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and^{topreventinjustice.} Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards^existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external^{innaturetomeetthe} ends of justice.

¶58

Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under^Section482of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:

¶59

In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 1 the Apex Court laid down the following principles:

¶60

(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings^{againstanaccused} may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or^{thatthequashingof} the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;

¶61

(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal^{baragainsttheinstitution} or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of^sanction;

¶62

(iii) where the allegations in the First Information^{Reportorthecomplaint} taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,^{donotconstitutethe} offence alleged; and

¶63

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged^{butthereiseitherno} legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly^{ormanifestlyfailsto} prove the charge.

¶64

AIR I960 sc 866

¶65

¶66

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in ‘‘Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumai^"

¶67

In a decision in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand & another^, wherein it was held thus: (paragraphs 30 to 34).

¶68

“30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.

¶69

^ AIR 1990 SC 494 ^ (2010) 7 see 667

¶70

¶71

The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under:

¶72

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

¶73

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’^means— (a) any wilful 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)^ofthe woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is^witha view to 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^{hertomeetsuch} demand.” 32. 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.^Wecome across a large number of such complaints which are^notevenbona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment^is also a matter of serious concern.

¶74

The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life 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 Bar who 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 parties in arriving at an amicabie resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society^{remainsintact.The} members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint^should not lead to multiple cases.

¶75

¶76

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the are not properly visualised by the implications and consequences lead to insurmountable complainant that such complaint can harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused^and his close relations.”

¶77

¶78

In a decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State^{OfBihar^} it

¶79

was held as follows

¶80

“The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed^concern over the misuse of section 498AIPC 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 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,^thiscourt by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the^husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 22. 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 in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s^husband are forced to undergo trial. 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.”

¶81

¶82

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

¶83

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting^{hertocruelty.—}

¶84

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

¶85

¶86

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^{beliabletofine.}

¶87

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

¶88

In the backdrop of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, it is to be examined whether the allegations made against the present petitioner/accused No.4 would attract the alleged offences and whether a prima facie case can be said to have been made out against the petitioner on the basis of the said allegations, Admittedly, the petitioner herein/accused No.4 is the sister of accused No.1/ husband of the de-facto complainant. A perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R. and the contents of the charge sheet would reveal that the petitioner/accused No.4 is married and living with her husband and that she is not staying along with accused Nos.1 to 3. This Court has perused the contents of the report lodged by the de-facto complainant. So far as the present petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned, it is alleged by the de-facto complainant that on 06.08.2016, the petitioner herein came to their house and since then, on her instigation, accused No.1 subjected her to harassment and left the de-facto complainant alone in their flat and went to Flat No.402, where his parents reside. Except this allegation and except making a further bald allegation that on 08.08.2016, when accused No.1 was harassing her physically, the^etitioner/ac^cusedNo.4

¶89

¶90

and accused Nos.2 and 3 did not stop him and instead, provoked him to kill her, there are no other specific overt acts or specific instances attributed against the present petitioner/accused No.4.

¶91

Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court and this court categorically held that a tendency has been developed in roping all^the relatives of the V ; husband in dowry harassment made in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband and the accusations against the relatives of the husband, if omnibus in nature, have to be curtailed at the threshold. In the instant case, the accusations that are made against the present petitioner/accused No.4 are either vague or general in nature. No specific instances have been mentioned in the report, attributing specific overt acts against the petitioner/accused No.4, which would attract the offences alleged. The allegations, if any, in the charge sheet would not come within the definition of ‘cruelty’ as defined under Section 498-A IPC, so far as the present petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned.

¶92

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 would amount to abuse of process of Court. In that view of the matter. this Court is inclined to quash the impugned proceedings so far as the petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned.

¶93