1 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 2999 of 2022 APHC010180462022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2999/2022 Between: Siruvuri Aruna and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P GOPALA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. K V L NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 2999 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2999/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 & 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.320 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court- cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimavaram. 2. Heard Sri P.Gopala Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. None represented for the respondent No.2. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are the Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are the parents of the husband of Respondent No.2/A1. The marriage of A1 with the respondent No.2 was performed on 28.02.2020. Learned Counsel would further submit that there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners.Learned Counsel would further submit that except omnibus and vague allegations made against the petitioners, nothing is attributed in specific to attract the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Learned Counsel finally submits that the petitioners were roped into the criminal case as an arm-twist to bind Accused No.1 to settle their scores. 3 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 2999 of 2022 Learned Counsel finally prays for quashment of the case against the petitioners. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Accused No.2 to the effect that she demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and also she herself left the respondent No.2 at her parents’ house. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders. Determination by the Court: 5. 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. 6. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar1, held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 4 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 2999 of 2022 the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. ***** 22.Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instance that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” (emphasis supplied) 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another2, 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; 2 2024 INSC 369 5 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 2999 of 2022 “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) 8. In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another3, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld 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.” (emphasis supplied) 9. To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present In the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus 32024 INSC 896 6 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 2999 of 2022 allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. In the backdrop of legal position referred supra, the case of the petitioners has to be scrutinized with great care and caution of factual aspects of the matter. 10. Considering the submissions made, and on a fair look at the contents of the complaint which was submitted to the Police by the respondent No.2 and in the backdrop of the legal position referred supra, as rightly put by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, except omnibus and vague allegations made against the petitioner/A3, nothing is attributed in specific to attract the offence punishable under Sections 498A and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there are specific allegations made against the mother-in-law of the respondent No.2 (i.e., A2) to the effect that along with A1, she demanded additional dowry and on 15.12.2020, she herself has taken the respondent No.2 to her parents’ house and threatened respondent No.2, until she brings the additional dowry, she will not be welcomed to their house. In that view, continuing criminal proceedings against A3 is mere abuse of process of law. Hence, it is apposite to quash the proceedings pending against A3. Coming to the case of A2, since there are specific allegations made against A2, it is not a fit case for quashment. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the Accused No.3 in C.C.No.320 of 2021 on the 7 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 2999 of 2022 file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhimavaram are hereby quashed. The Criminal Petition with regard to Accused No.2 is dismissed. However, the presence of Accused No.2 before the Trial Court is dispensed with unless her presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.02.2025 UPS 8 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 2999 of 2022 74 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2999 of 2022 Dt.07.02.2025 UPS 9 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.P.No. 2999 of 2022