APHC010123942022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2264/2022 Between: 1. BALINENI VAMSI KRISHNA, S/O LATE BALINENI NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE,R/ O. SANDY SPRINGS APARTMENTS, LOTUS BLOCK, FLAT NO.301, MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD - 500089 2. BALINENI SUJATHA, W/O LATE BALINENI NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC. RETD. PRIVATE TEACHERR/ O. SANDY SPRINGS APARTMENTS, LOTUS BLOCK, FLAT NO.301, MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD - 500089 3. BKK PHANENDRA NATH, S/O LATE BALINENI NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE R/ O. SANDY SPRINGS APARTMENTS, LOTUS BLOCK, FLAT NO.301, MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD - 500089 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. BALINENI SOWMYA KUMARI GARAPATI, W/O. BALINENI VAMSHI KRISHNA D/O GARAPATI SATYA SAIBABA, AGED ABOUT.33 YEARS, OCC. SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. 3-4-597, YERUBANDI VARI STREET, SUBBARAO PETA, TADEPALLIGUDAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O., P.S., TADEPALLIGUDEM, W.G REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 The Court made the following: 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.550 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code2 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19613. 2. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is the husband, Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 is the mother-in-law and Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 is the brother-in- law of Respondent No.1. 3. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2/State is in attendance. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the allegations made against the Petitioners are bald and omnibus. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet only against Petitioner/Accused No.1 and deleted the names of Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3 since no evidence could be gathered against them. It is submitted that, there is no prima facie evidence 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short ‘IPC’ 3 for short ‘D.P.Act’ 3 against the Petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that Respondent No.1 herself deserted the company of Petitioner/Accused No.1 and left for USA on job by leaving the girl child to her fate. Learned counsel would further submit that though Respondent No.1 did not file any sworn affidavit in support of the protest petition, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance, which is bad under law. Learned counsel would finally submit that, no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioners, as such, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh4. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners for the commission of the alleged offences. The veracity of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 6. 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.550 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem? 4 (2019) 8 SCC 27 4 Determination by the Court 7. 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 court of appeal or a court of revision. It must 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. 8. In the instant case, Respondent No.1 lodged a complaint dated 24.09.2017 alleging that, the marriage of Respondent No.1 with Accused No.1 was performed on 25.02.2012 and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 8 sovereigns to Petitioner/Accused No.1, sare saman worth Rs.1,00,000/- and 50 sovereigns of gold to Respondent No.1 were given by her parents. After some period, Accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing her by demanding additional dowry. Accused No.1 used to beat her in drunken state. At the time of 9th month of her pregnancy, when the brother of Respondent No.1 came to take her for delivery, Accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded him to give Rs.15.00 lakhs and when he expressed his inability, they abused him. It is further alleged that, due to the harassment of Accused Nos.1 and 2, her child died during the 5 delivery. Even then also, Accused Nos.1 and 2 did not change their attitude. Petitioner/Accused No.3, who was residing in USA used to phone Respondent No.1 and demand her to bring the said amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs. Subsequently as she gave birth to a female child, at the instigation of Accused No.2, Accused No.1 tried to throw the child from the top floor of the hospital. However, the father of Respondent No.1 saved the child from the hands of Accused No.1. When the elders tried to settle the dispute several times, all the Accused used to demand Rs.15.00 lakhs. As such, she lodged the present complaint. 9. Police, after conducting investigation, having found that no case is made out against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 only by deleting the names of Accused Nos.2 and 3. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.1 filed a protest petition before the trial Court and the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the alleged offences against Accused Nos.1 to 3. 10. Admittedly, Petitioner/Accused No.3 is the younger brother of Accused No.1 and he has been residing in USA. It is alleged that Accused No.3 along with Accused Nos.1 and 2 used to demand Respondent No.1 to bring an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs. A bare perusal of complaint and the material placed on record would reveal that except a casual reference, there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed against Petitioner/Accused No.3 in the commission of the alleged offences. Mere allegation that Petitioner/Accused No.3 along with the other Accused used to harass 6 Respondent No.1 by demanding additional dowry over phone, would not amount to the commission of the alleged offence by the Petitioner/Accused No.3. As no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, this Court is of the view that continuation of prosecution against him, is an abuse of process of law. 11. The entire allegations are pertaining to Accused Nos.1 and 2. The contention of the Petitioners is that Respondent No.1 voluntarily deserted Accused No.1 and went to USA by leaving the child to her fate. As such, Petitioner/Accused No.1 filed G.O.P.No.1041 of 2017 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Eluru, seeking custody of the child and the same was dismissed, against which a revision has been preferred. All these contentions are the factual aspects to be decided during trial and the same is not a ground to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 at the threshold. The further contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that, in view of the non-filing of sworn affidavit of Respondent No.1, taking cognizance of the case against the Petitioners for the alleged offences, is bad under Law, is not tenable as the sworn affidavit can also be filed at this stage and the same is a curable defect. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another5, highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context 5 2024 INSC 369 7 of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows; “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and Another6, held as follows: “The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions. It appears that in the case on hand despite raising of specific contentions which require deeper consideration, may be taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the complainant that the challan was presented and the matter stood listed for framing charges and hence, it would be open to accused No.5 to raise all plea at the time of framing of the charges, the Court refrained itself from considering the contentions raised against accused No.5.” 14. In view of the above discussion and the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the view that, when there is a material to proceed further against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, it is not a fit case to entertain the 6 SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022, dated 26.11.2024 8 quashment against them. However, as discussed above, since there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed by quashing proceedings against Petitioners/Accused No.3 in C.C.No.550 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petition against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:10.01.2025 Dinesh 9 HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2264 of 2022 Dt.10.01.2025 Dinesh