1 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No.3348 of 2022 APHC010218022022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3348/2022 Between: Sunkara Prasad and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No.3348 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3348/2022 ORDER: 1. 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 to 9, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in FIR.No. 122 of 2022 on the file of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Heard Sri K. Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ch.Sai Gangadhar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State/Respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are Accused Nos. 2 to 9 and that the Accused No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2. It is stated that the A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1;A- 4 and A-5 are married sister and her husband; A-6 and A-7 are another married sister and her husband; A-8 and A-9 are another married sister and her husband. Learned Counsel would further submit that except vague and omnibus allegations, nothing is attributed in specific against the Petitioners, to maintain a case for the offence under Section 498-A and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel would further submit that A-1 who is the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2018 itself, but the wife did not turn up. Later in the year 2022, he filed a petition for 3 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No.3348 of 2022 divorce, immediately thereafter, this case has been lodged against him and all of his family members. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners i.e., A-4, A-6 and A-8 who are married sisters, have been residing separately in their respective matrimonial houses along with their husbands. They have no role played between the A-1 and the respondent No.2. They have never stayed under one roof along with A-1 and respondent No.2. Learned Counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the complaint, charge sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation would disclose specific allegations against every individual who are the petitioners in this matter. It is not a fit case for quashment. Learned counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the respondent No.2 and prays for dismissal of the petition. 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 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 4 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No.3348 of 2022 powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 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, has held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over 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) 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 5 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No.3348 of 2022 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; “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 Court has 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 2 2024 INSC 369 32024 INSC 896 6 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No.3348 of 2022 cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions.” (emphasis supplied) 9. To summarize the point of law discussed in 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 necessary for the ingredients under the Section is present in the contents of the complaint; general, vague and omnibus 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. A keen perusal of the material on record would show that it is alleged against the husband and parent-in-laws i.e., A2 and A3 about the alleged harassment for additional dowry since the very beginning. The record further shows when the husband filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent No.2 did not turn up. But when the husband filed petition for divorce in the year 2022, then she has come up with the present case. This Court cannot jump into conclusion that simply the wife has come to the Court after filing divorce petition and so that it is a false case. This is not a stage to decide the veracity of such allegations. This Court while staying in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, cannot appreciate the evidence by conducting a mini trial. 7 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No.3348 of 2022 11. However, on careful scrutiny of the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, A4, A6 and A8 are married sisters of A-1, who never stayed under one roof with A-1 and respondent No.2. They have been residing at their matrimonial house with their husbands who are A-5, A-7 and A-9 respectively.In that view, continuing criminal proceedings against them is mere abuse of process of law. But the record shows there are specific allegations against the husband and parents’ in laws regarding the alleged demand of additional dowry. In that view, the matter requires investigation at full length of trialin so far as those Petitioners/Accused Nos., 2 and 3 are concerned. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed, quashing the criminal proceedings qua Accused Nos., 4 to 9, however the proceedings against the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 shall continue, in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.02.2025 UPS 8 DR.VJPJ, Crl.P.No.3348 of 2022 152 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3348 of 2022 Dt.17.02.2025 UPS