APHC010145792022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2448/2022 Between: 1. GANI PARVATHI REDDY, W/O. NARENDER, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O. NO.17, BALAJI STREET, VOC NAGAR, PERUMAL, KANCHEEPURARN, TAMIL NADU STATE. 2. PERUMAL NARENDER, S/O. PERUMAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. NO.17, BALAJI STREET, VOC NAGAR, PERUMAL, KANCHEEPURAM, TAMILNADU STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. 2. K LAKSHMI PRIYA, D/O. K.LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.3-138-1, FLAT NO.302, SRISAI NILAYAM APARTMENT, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. Y JAYA RAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 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.4 and 5, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1249 of 2021 on the 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code2 and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act3. 2. Petitioners herein are the Accused Nos.4 and 5 and they are the sister and brother-in-law respectively of Accused No.1. 3. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Y.Jaya Raju, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioners are false and concocted. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners never resided along with the family of Respondent No.2. It is submitted that the only allegation against Petitioner/Accused No.5 is that he supported the family of her in-laws. Learned counsel would finally submit that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners, therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences and the same has to 2 for short ‘IPC’ 3 for short ‘D.P.Act’ 3 be proved during trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of 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.4 and 5 in C.C.No.1249 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool? 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. It is alleged in the complaint that, the junior paternal uncle of Respondent No.2 brought the match and got performed her marriage with Accused No.1 on 21.06.2019 and there was exchange of dowry of Rs.8.00 lakhs and 40 tulas of gold. The junior paternal uncle of Respondent No.2 4 along with Accused Nos.1 to 4 represented that Accused No.1 had completed B.Tech and M.B.A and was working in FEDEX Company at Chennai and was getting salary of Rs.70,000/- per month at the time of marriage. After the marriage, Accused Nos.1 to 4 started harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs and subjecting her to both physical and mental cruelty. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 came to know that the job and educational qualifications of Accused No.1 as represented by them, are false and he was not doing any job. On 25.08.2019, when the mother of Respondent No.2 came to their house for settling the dispute amicably, Accused Nos.1 to 4 beat her mother and send Respondent No.2 and her mother out of the house and asked her to bring additional dowry. It is further alleged that, though she got job in Secretariat, Accused Nos.1 to 4 asked her not to go for the job. Though the same was informed to the junior paternal uncle of Respondent No.2, instead of settling the dispute, he also used to support Accused Nos.1 to 4. Hence, she lodged the present complaint against all the Accused. 9. In Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand & another4, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate 4 (2010) 7 SCC 667 5 relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 10. 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 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.” 5 2024 INSC 369 6 11. 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.” 12. In the case on hand, Petitioner/Accused No.4 is the married sister and Petitioner /Accused No.5 is the brother-in-law of Accused No.1. It is alleged that Accused Nos.1 to 4 used to harass Respondent No.2 by demanding additional dowry. Admittedly, the Petitioners herein are the residents of Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu State and they have not resided along with the family of Respondent No.2 under one roof. It is Accused No.6, who represented that Accused No.1 got job through Petitioner/Accused No.5 and both are working in the same Company. A bare perusal of the allegations mentioned in the compliant would reveal that except a casual reference, there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5. Further, there is not even a single allegation against the 6 SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022, dated 26.11.2024 7 Petitioner/Accused No.5 with regard to the commission of the alleged offences. Mere allegation that Accused Nos.1 to 4 used to harass Respondent No.2 by demanding additional dowry would not amount to the commission of the alleged offence by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5. As no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5, this Court is of the view that continuation of prosecution against them is an abuse of process of law. In such circumstances, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.1249 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 09.01.2025 Dinesh 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2448 of 2022 Dt.09.01.2025 Dinesh