APHC010115132022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDA ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1981/2022 Between: 1. CHEJARLA RAMESH BABU, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGE.40 YEARS, OCC. SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.NO.24-110-21/1, KANITI ROAD CHINNA GANTYADA, NEAR MORE SUPER MARKET, GAJUWAKA,VISHAKHAPATNAM CITY. 2. CHEJARLA VIJAYA, W/O VENKATESWARLU, AGE.58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO.24-110-21/1, KANITI ROAD CHINNA GANTYADA, NEAR MORE SUPER MARKET, GAJUWAKA,VISHAKHAPATNAM CITY. 3. CHEJARLA ANUSHA, D/O VENKATESWARLU, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. H.NO.24-110-21/1, KANITI ROAD CHINNA GANTYADA, NEAR MORE SUPER MARKET, GAJUWAKA,VISHAKHAPATNAM CITY. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ULAVAPADU POLICE STATION, KANDUKUR, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P AT VIJAYAWADA. 2. CHEJARLA SRI LAKSHMI, W/O RAMESH BABU, AGE.30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O BADDIPUDI VILLAGE, ULAVAPADU MANDAL KANDUKUR TOWN. PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. M L ALI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.201 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code2 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19613. 2. Heard Sri M.L.Ali, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Notice sent to Respondent No.2 was returned as refused. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioners are false and frivolous. Learned counsel would submit that Respondent No.2 demanded Petitioner/Accused No.1 to leave the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 for which he refused, and as such, the present complaint has been lodged. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent No.2 intentionally deserted her husband and as the efforts of the elders for reunion proved futile, Petitioner/Accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.1787 of 2017 on the file of Additional Family Court, 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short ‘IPC’ 3 for short ‘D.P.Act’ 3 Visakhapatnam seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and the same was decreed on 21.11.2019. Learned counsel would finally submit that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners for the commission of the alleged offences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided at full length of trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.201 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur? Determination by the Court 6. 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 trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must 4 exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 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. 7. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others4 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 482 of 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 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 should be exercised. (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 not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers 4 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (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 the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd 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. (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 and continuance 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. (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 and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. 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 not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 8. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial Court, Court of Appeal or a Court of Revision. It must exercise its powers 6 to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 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. It is a well settled principle of law that when a prosecution is sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence alleged or not. 9. In the case on hand, it is alleged by Respondent No.2 that the marriage of Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner/Accused No.1 had taken place on 25.08.2010 and at the time of marriage, the parents of Respondent No.2 gave dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs and presented 10 sovereigns of gold. After the marriage, she went to her matrimonial home at Visakhapatnam and used to stay with Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3. As the Petitioner/Accused No.1 was working at Hyderabad, she used to stay with Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3. During wed lock she blessed with a male child. Thereafter, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing her by subjecting her to cruelty both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs. On 13.12.2016 as the father of Respondent No.2 died, she went to her parental home and when she returned to her matrimonial home, Petitioners have not allowed her into the house. Thought the elders tried to settle the dispute, the Petitioners did not change their attitude. The Petitioners stated that, if Respondent No.2 does not bring additional dowry, they would performa another marriage to Accused No.1. Having no other go, she reached her 7 parental home and has been residing there. As such, she lodged the present complaint. 10. As seen from the contents of the complaint as well as the charge sheet, there are specific allegations made against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3. It is the contended by the Petitioners that Respondent No.2 intentionally left the matrimonial home and the Petitioner/Accused No.1 obtained divorce in F.C.O.P.No.1787 of 2017 on the file of Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam on the ground of cruelty. However, a bare perusal of the decree in F.C.O.P.No.1787 of 2017 would disclose that the same was an ex parte decree, that too, it was granted subsequent to lodging of the present complaint. As seen from the complaint, there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences and the same have to be revealed during trial. 11. The Court cannot throttle the proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the criminal proceedings against them cannot be quashed since the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are prima facie made out. As such, the matter requires full-fledged trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. The case does not fall under any of the guidelines in Bhajanlal’s case (supra). There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, at this stage and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 8 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the presence of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court is dispensed with, except on the specific dates as directed by the trial Court. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:09.01.2025 Dinesh 9 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.1981 of 2022 Dt.09.01.2025 Dinesh