Shaik Arif Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station, Ongole. Through Public Prosecutor, At Hon’ble High Court of AP Nalapadu, Guntur District.

¶12

Shaik Shahina, W/o. Rakhib, Age 28 years, Occ: House Wife, Lorry Gunta Colony, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶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 crime No.740/2022^onthefileof Mahila Police Station, Ongole for the alleged offence punishable U/s498A,506,3,4 of DPA r/w 34IPC against the A3 only.

¶15

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶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 may be pleased to stay all further

¶17

proceedings in crime No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole for the alleged offence punishable U/s498-A,506,3,4 of DPA r/w 34IPC against the A3 only.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

4

¶21

APHC010425502024

¶22

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

¶23

[3368]

¶24

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No: 6889/2024

¶28

Between:

¶29

1.SHAIK ARIF, S/0 MAHABOOB BASHA, AGE 35YRS,OCC GOVT.KHAJL, 1-350 ISLAMPET,LST LANE.ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DIST.

¶30

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶31

AND

¶32

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER MAH I LA POLICE STATION,ONGOLE.THROUGH PUBLIC PROSCUTOR,AT HONBLE HIGH COURT OF AP NALAPADU,GUNTUR DIST.

¶33

2.SHAIK SHAHINA, W/0 RAKHIB ,AGE 28YRS,OCC HOUSE WIFE, LORRY GUNTA COLONY,ONGOLE,PRAKASAM DIST.

¶34

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶36

1.GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶38

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

2

¶41

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶42

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6889 OF 2024

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

The Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-3^U/s.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.740/2022 on the^file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶45

Heard Sri G.Siva Prasada Reddy, learned counsel for^the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1. None appeared for the unofficial respondent, though notice served.

¶46

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is shown as A-3 in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 IPC and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; the petitioner is neither relative nor family member of the husband (A-1)^ofthe unofficial respondent; the petitioner is Kazi and performed^the marriage of A-1 and the uaofficial respondent; except^thathehas

¶47

3

¶48

nothing to do with the disputes between A-1 and the unofficial respondent: he was falsely implicated in the case; therefore, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner/A-3^for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 IPC and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶49

The learned counsel for petitioner restated the above contentions of the petitioner at the time of arguments. 05. In the light of above contentions, the point that arose^for consideration in this Criminal petition is as under:

¶50

“Whether the proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, be quashed as prayed for, invoking section 482 Cr.P.C? ”

¶51

POINT:

¶52

Perusal of the First Information Report does not disclose that the petitioner/A-3 is relative or family member^ofA-1. There are no specific overt acts alleged against the petitioner/A-3^to attract the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 I.P.C. and U/secs.3^and4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, except bald statement of the unofficial respondent.

¶53

‘i.'

¶54

4

¶55

In that view of the matter and in view of the judgment^of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geddam Jhansi Vs. State of Telangana^ and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lai and others^, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuance of proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 I.P.C and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, would amount not only abuse of process, but also mis-use of criminal proceedings.

¶56

The inherent powers of Court U/s.482 Cr.P.C. be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court. When the allegations^inthe report presented by the unofficial respondent to the police or the statements of the witnesses recorded U/s.161 Cr.P.C. are not constituting any prima facie case for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 IPC or U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioner/A-3 for the foregoing reasons, this Court can exercise its power, in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs.

¶57

/

¶58

Ch.Bhajanlal and others.

¶59

^ 2025 see Online Se 263 H992 AIR 604

¶60

5

¶61

%

¶62

Therefore, in the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 IPC and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Accordingly, the point is answered.

¶63

<br>

¶64

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are quashed.

¶65

As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-B PRASADA

¶66

Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

r

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To