IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3445 OF 2021 Between: R Surya Prakash, S/o R. Appa Rao, Aged about 39 years, Occ. School Assistant, Z.P.H.S Mopada Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.9 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Station House Officer, Gokavaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 2. Saketi Padma Sree, W/o S. Srinivasa Rao, D/o Venkata Ramana, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Rampayerrampalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 561 of 2020 on the file of the Gokavaram Police Station, Rajamahendrava ram Urban LA. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner/Accused No.9 in FIR No. 561 of 2020 on the file of the Gokavaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P Rajesh Babu Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following order: APHC010204462021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3445/2021 Between: R Surya Prakash ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.P RAJESH BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_3445_2021 ORDER; This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.561 of 2020 on the file of the Gokavaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban in so far as the petitioner/accused No.9 is concerned. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.9 and the 2^^ respondent is the defacto complainant. The 2"'^ respondent herein has filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Gokavaram stating that she is a resident of Rampayerrampalem village, Gokavaram mandal and that her performed with accused No.1 marriage was on 19.06.2019 at Annavaram Satyanarayanaswami Devasthanam, for which the family of the 2 respondent paid a total of Rs. 12,50,000/- towards dowry. When the 2"^^ respondent was taken to her in-laws’ house, the 1®‘ accused and his relatives abused the 2""^ respondent with filthy language stating that she belongs to lower caste and that they would have got Rs.50,00,000/- if the 1 had married another girl. They have also beat the 2"'^ respondent with legs stomach, pulled her by holding hair and further demanded to bring Rs. 10,00,000/- as additional dowry and driven the 2"'^ respondent out of the nd accused on house causing mental harassment. Thereafter, the 1®' accused took the 2""' respondent to the house of the petitioner herein wherein, both the 1®‘ accused and the petitioner herein are alleged to have abused the 2"'^ respondent i. filthy language; that the petitioner herein took the signature of the 2”'^ respondent on a blank sheet and harassed both physically and mentally and have instigated the 2'^^ respondent to commit suicide. Subsequently, the 2' respondent started residing in her paternal home, during which the 1 accused has demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- as additional dowry. As all the in-laws of the 2"^^ respondent and other relatives including the petitioner herein have harassed the 2"^^ respondent, she requested to take action against all the accused. Upon receiving the said compliant of the 2"'^_respondent, the Police in nd 3 Crlp_3445_202i have registered a case in Crime No.561 of 2020 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 21.12.2020. Challenging the said FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the complaint and has sought quashment of the FIR on the ground that he is not in anyway related to accused No.1 or to the defacto complainant. Fie submits that the petitioner is just a friend of accused No.1 and as such, the prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC is not maintainable against him. The petitioner was roped into the criminal proceedings basing on omnibus allegations and with no specific instances of his involvement in the crime. In order to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC, there shall be harassment coercing the person to meet any unlawful demand for any property or any valuable security by the family members only. As the petitioner is not a family member of the 1®' accused, the provisions of Section 498 A of IPC.and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, are not attracted. Flence, requested to quash the present proceedings in FIR No.561 of 2020 on the file of Gokavaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would constitute offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. Flence, prayed to dismiss the petition. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 29.06.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “...Therefore, in the said facts and circumstance of the case, there shalt be interim stay of further proceeding including arrest against the petitioner alone, who is A-9, in Crime No.561 of 2020 of Gokavaram Police Station, till the next date of hearing. Investigation against other accused may goon...’’ 3. 4. 5. 4 VS,J Crlp_3445_2021 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in F.I.R.No.561 of 2020 on the file of the Gokavaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? Sf Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 7. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows; In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab^ ", the Apex Court laid down the following principles: 8. 1AIR 1960 SC 866 5 Crlp_3445_202l . (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the guashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (Hi) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and' (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in 'Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumat^ ” 9. ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 6 VS,J 9^ Crlp_3445_2021 In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lat^” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (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 under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 10. (3) Where the 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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the 11. case on hand. ^ 1992 Supp(l) see 335 " ' 7 Crlp_3445_202l The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. It can be from the complaint that the 2"^^ respondent has alleged that subsequent to her marriage, all the accused including the petitioner herein have harassed the 2"'^ respondent physically and mentally for additional dowry. Hence, the Police have registered a case against all the accused under Section 498(A) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is extracted hereunder; 12. seen "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical_ of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is no account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” In the instant case, the petitioner herein is not a relative of the husband of the 2'""' respondent at all. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. 13. 14. The Apex Court, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana"^ observed that:- “6. The Courts should be careful In proceeding against the distant relatives incrimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The rejatives of the husband "(2018) 14 see 452 8 VSJ » ' Crlp_3445_2021 should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. ” 15. The Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others^, while referring to its earlier judgment in K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana (referred supra), held that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and must keep in mind that relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations. 16. The above-mentioned decision clearly demonstrate that the Apex Court, at numerous instances has expressed concern over 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, the Apex court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when prima facie case is made out against them. no 17. In the instant case, the petitioner herein is not a relative of the husband of the 2"^ respondent. He admittedly is just a friend of the 1®* accused. Implicating friends of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused, is abuse of process of court. It is a settled law that prosecution under Section 498(A) of IPC is not maintainable against a person, who is not a relative to the husband of the 2"'^ respondent. As per the principle No.1 of the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1®‘ Supra) if continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned ^ (2022) 6 see 599 9 VS,. Crlp_3445_202l v proceedings would secure the ends of justice, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle to the present facts of the case and keeping in view the above discussion, I find that it is a fit case to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R.No.561 of 2020 on the file of the Gokavaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban are hereby quashed against the petitioner. 18. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District 2. One CC to Sri. Taddi Nageswara Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. P Rajesh Babu Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies vna f HIGH COURT DATED :07/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3445 of 2021 2 1 FEB 2025 . Current Section . ^ DISPOSING OF THE CRLP