Kadali Vijaya @ Vijayamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/A4 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3711 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶20

SRK, J CrlP No.5494 of 2023

¶21

2

¶22

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of defacto complainant with A1 was performed on 28.04.2018. Before the marriage, the accused made de-facto complainant and her parents believe that A1 was doing broom business earning Rs.50,000/- per month and promised to look after her well. LWs.2 and 3 spent about Rs.20,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, paid Rs.1,35,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam, and transferred Rs.7,00,000/- to A1’s account. After marriage, A1 did not maintain marital relations, picked up quarrels, and along with other accused harassed the de-facto complainant physically and mentally, demanding additional dowry. A3 blamed her as lunatic, and A4 also harassed her.The de facto complainant later came to know that A1’s business was false and he was working under Sudheer (LW.8). On demand, LWs.2 and 3 paid Rs.5,00,000/-, and she handed over her gold ornaments, which were pledged at Muthoot Finance through LW.8. Despite this, the accused continued harassment and A1 drove her out of the house insisting that she return only after getting a job. Based on the report, a case in Cr.No.69/2019 was registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

¶23

This Court, on 01.08.2023, while ordering notice to 2^nd respondent, granted interim stay of all further proceedings, in respect of petitioner herein, in C.C.No.3711 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

¶24

SRK, J CrlP No.5494 of 2023

¶25

3

¶26

Sri Sardam Hussain, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting the entire accusations to be true, still no offence is made out against the petitioner herein. According to him, the petitioner is the sister of A1. He further submits that except omnibus accusations made against the petitioner, there is absolutely no other material to connect the petitioner to the crime. Even according to the charge sheet, except stating that petitioner was visiting the house of A1 and whenever she visited, she allegedly harassed the defacto complainant, there are no specific allegations. Except this vague and false statement that has been made as against the petitioner herein, there is no other accusations have been made against the petitioner. According to him, all the accusations are mainly directed against A1 to A3.

¶27

On the other hand, Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that specific accusations have been made as against the petitioner that she harassed the de-facto complainant, which is sufficient for the prosecution to proceed and face trial. According to him, the petitioner’s son was staying in the house of A1, and on that pretext, the petitioner was visiting the house of A1.

¶28

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2/ de- facto complainant.

¶29

Heard. Perused the record.

¶30

SRK, J CrlP No.5494 of 2023

¶31

4

¶32

The marriage of the de-facto complainant with A1 was performed on 28.04.2018. At the time of marriage, it was informed to the de-facto complainant that A1 was doing business and earning Rs.50,000/- per month and promised that he would look after her well. It is further stated that they were also having a car. It is said that L.Ws.2 and 3 spent about Rs.20,00,000/towards marriage, and Rs.1,35,000/- was given towards Adapaduchu Katnam. Before marriage, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and after marriage, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/was transferred to A1’s account from the account of the de-facto complainant.

¶33

In pursuance of the marriage, the de-facto complainant joined matrimonial life. Specific accusations have been made as against A1 that he did not have conjugal relations with de-facto complainant and further informed her that, at present, he does not want children. Whenever the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, A1 used to pick up quarrels with her. Petitioner’s son was staying in the house of A1 to A3. Because of the said reason, the petitioner/A4 was visiting the house of A1 to A3 and allegedly harassed the de-facto complainant. A2 and A3 are alleged to have harassed the de-facto complainant by stating that the de-facto complainant is a lunatic and advised her to take treatment.

¶34

It is alleged that, after her marriage, all the accused demanded additional dowry on the ground that they were having debts and in that connection, the de-facto complainant was

¶35

SRK, J CrlP No.5494 of 2023

¶36

5

¶37

harassed physically and mentally. Basing on the said accusations, the de-facto complainant resulted in filing the present complaint against the petitioner and others.

¶38

This Court has perused the charge sheet and the statements which are an integral part of the charge sheet. On perusal of the same, except a vague and bald allegation that the petitioner used to visit the house of A1 to A3 on the pretext of seeing her son and allegedly harassed the de-facto complainant, there are no other specific allegations made either in the charge sheet or in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Police.

¶39

This Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court have time and again held that, in order to wreck vengeance, de-facto complainants are in the habit of implicating all the family members of the husband and said practice is to be deprecated. Without there being any specific accusations against the relatives of A1, the de-facto complainant has implicated all the relatives of A1.

¶40

13. In Shobhit Kumar Mittal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-

¶41

“18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by complainant/respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused/appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand for dowry, the complainant/respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place,

¶42

SRK, J CrlP No.5494 of 2023

¶43

6

¶44

or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred or the details of the nature of demand or its particulars. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. Furthermore, the complainant/respondent No.2 has failed to impress the Court as to how the alleged harassment has any proximate relationship to the said injury and nerve damage that she sustained, so as to punish her in-laws under Section 323 IPC. There is no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused/appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said FIR for the offence of hurt as defined under Section 319 IPC. Furthermore, merely stating that the accused/appellant has mentally harassed the complainant/respondent No.2 with respect to a demand for dowry does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC specially inabsence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking the aforesaid provisions, without mentioning any specific detail, weakens the case of the prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the probability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in the FIR which is the basic premise for invoking the criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to initiate criminal proceedings against them. Therefore, mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person.”

¶45

SRK, J CrlP No.5494 of 2023

¶46

7

¶47

It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is residing elsewhere and she is working. Therefore, it is highly improbable on the part of the petitioner herein to visit the house of A1 to A3 every three days in a week in order to see her son who is staying at the house of A1 to A3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the distance between the house of petitioner and the accused is more than 70kms. Even accepting the same, the question of the petitioner herein going to the house of A1 to A3 once in a week in order to harass the defacto complainant is not tenable.

¶48

Apart from the same, it is also submitted that the husband of A1 has filed O.P. for the dissolution of marriage and in relation to the same, divorce was granted between both the de-facto complainant and A1 in the year 2025. In matrimonial disputes, the Courts have to be careful and cautious while dealing with complaints against relatives and must take into consideration whether such accusations are to be scrutinized with great care, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice.

¶49

16 Going by the accusations contained in the charge sheet, except mentioning that the petitioner, whenever she visits the house of A1, is alleged to have harassed the de-facto complainant, there is absolutely no other averment made against the petitioner herein. These omnibus accusations cannot be sustained unless and until there is a specific accusation made against the petitioner herein.

¶50

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings against the petitioner herein

¶51

SRK, J CrlP No.5494 of 2023

¶52

8

¶53

are nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Even if the petition is allowed to proceed and the entire trial is conducted, no purpose would be served and nothing would survive. For the said reasons, proceedings against the petitioner herein vide C.C.No.3711 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, are hereby quashed.

¶54