APHC010354202022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5266/2022 Between: 1. MOHAMMAD AHMADULLA SHARIF, S/O AHMADULLA SHARIF, AGED 71 YEARS, PONNUR VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMAD GULJAR BEGUM, W/O AHMADULLA SHARIF, AGED 63 YEARS, PONNUR VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. DR. MOHAMMED NURUL HUDA, SIO AHMADULLA SHARIEF, AGED 46 YEARS, MEDICAL OFFICER, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. DR. JAREEN PARVEEN SYED, W/O DR.MOHAMMED NURUL HUDA, (MENTIONED AS MOHAMMED JAREENA PARVEEN IN CHARGE SHEET) AGED 42 YEARS, MEDICAL OFFICER, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, PITTALAVANI PALEM, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. SHAIK JAREENA BEGUM, D/O SHALK SINGAMAPLLI KHAJA HUSSAIN, 35 YEARS, EIFUVURU ROAD, PAMMURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. BILAAL AHMED SYED Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. P SARASWATHI The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.71 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, Prakasam District for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19613. 2. Heard Sri Bilal Ahmed Syed, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Ms.P.Saraswathi, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.2 to 5. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused Nos.2 to 5 are the father, mother, brother and sister-in-law of Accused No.1. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations made against the Petitioners to maintain a case under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Learned counsel would further submit that, Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the Medical Officers and they worked at Ponnur and Pandrapadu of Guntur District, they stayed at different places and they never stayed under one roof along with Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. It is further submitted that, the marriage between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 is a love marriage that had taken place on 22.03.2009. Hence, the 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short ‘IPC’ 3 for short ‘DP Act’ 3 question of harassing Respondent No.2 by Accused No.1 at the instigation of Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 does not arise. Learned counsel further submits that, they have filed the attendance certificate of Accused No.4 to show that he was on duty on 26.07.2018 i.e., on the date of the alleged incident, which is referred in the complaint. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition. 4. 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 be proved during trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 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. It is alleged in the complaint that, the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 had taken place on 22.03.2009 and it was a love marriage with 4 the consent of both the elders. At the time of marriage, there was exchange of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, 35 tulas of gold, Rs.2,00,000/- towards household articles, Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing motorcycle and the marriage was performed by spending an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. After the marriage, Petitioners used to instigate Accused No.1 in subjecting Respondent No.2 to both physical and mental cruelty. After the birth of a male child, having addicted to vices, Accused No.1 used to harass Respondent No.2 without looking after the welfare of Respondent No.2 and the child. On 26.07.2018, on the demand of Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5, Respondent No.2, her father, brother and brother-in-law signed on bond papers. Thereafter also there was no change in the attitude of all the Accused and they continued their harassment towards Respondent No.2. Having no other go, she lodged the present complaint. 7. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others Vs. State of Telangana and another4, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 4 2024 INSC 953 5 *** 28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.” 8. 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 allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. 9. In the case on hand, as seen from the complaint, Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 resided in Vijayawada, Guntur and Tirupati, whereas, the Petitioners resided in Ponnur. Further, the complaint discloses that the marriage between them is a love marriage with the consent of both elders, however, it is alleged in the complaint that, disliking their marriage, the Petitioners instigated Accused No.1 in subjecting Respondent No.2 to both physical and mental cruelty. These are two versions given by Respondent No.2 in the complaint which are contra to each other. Further, it is not the case of Respondent No.2 that all of them resided under one roof. Further the attendance certificate of Petitioner/Accused No.4 and the service particulars of 6 Petitioner/Accused No.5 would disclose that, being Medical Officers, they both resided away from the family of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. 10. Except claiming that Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 to 5 instigated Accused No.1 in subjecting Respondent No.2 to both physical and mental cruelty and the demand of dowry and other articles at the time of marriage, there is nothing in specific against the Petitioners to connect them with the alleged offences. In the absence of any specific overt acts against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against them is a sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case for quashment by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.71 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, Prakasam District for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:23.07.2025 Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.5266 of 2022 Dt.23.07.2025 Dinesh