APHC010377322022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5640/2022 Between: MORLA CHENCHAIAH, S/O. LATE. SOMERU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. R T C CONDUCTOR, R/O. DOOR NO. 21-8-7/A, K K ROAD, OLD PONNUR , PONNUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI, 2. PULL VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, MOPIDEVI VILLLAGE, MOPIDEVI MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D SESHASAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. V N ANAGANI The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.5, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.352 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Avanigadda 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 D.Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. In spite of providing sufficient opportunity, none appeared for Respondent No.2 to submit arguments. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the cousin of the husband of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that the Police, after investigation, having found that Accused Nos.2 to 5 are not involved the alleged crime, filed charge sheet by deleting the names of Accused Nos.2 to 5. Learned counsel would finally submit that, except bald and omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioner. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit fairly conceded that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner and the Court may pass appropriate orders. 2 for short ‘IPC’ 3 for short ‘DP Act’ 3 Point for Determination 5. 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 Petitioner/Accused No.5 in C.C.No.352 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda? 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 powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. It is alleged in the complaint that, the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 had taken place on 15.02.2008. At the time of marriage, there was exchange of dowry of Rs.15.00 lakhs and gold ring and sare saman worth Rs.2.00 lakhs. At the time of marriage, it was represented that Accused No.1 has completed Engineering and was working in E.C.I.L, Hyderabad and was 4 getting salary of Rs.60,000/- per month. During wedlock, two female children were born to Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1. Since then, Accused Nos.2 to 5 along with Accused No.1 have been harassing her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs and subjecting her to both physical and mental cruelty. Having no other go, she went to her parental home. The efforts made by the elders for settling the disputes, proved futile. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 filed H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2018 seeking divorce. As such, she lodged the present complaint. 8. In Preeti Gupta and another v. 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 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 4 (2010) 7 SCC 667 5 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.” 9. 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.” 10. 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. 11. In the case on hand, as seen from the contents of the complaint, except stating that the Petitioner/Accused No.5, who is the cousin of Accused No.1 along with the other Accused demanded Respondent No.2 to bring additional 5 2024 INSC 369 6 dowry, there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against him. Further, it is not the case of Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner resided along with her family under one roof. No material is placed on record to connect them with the alleged crime. Further, the Police, after conducting investigation, having found no prima facie case against Accused Nos.2 to 5, filed charge sheet by deleting their names. The charge sheet further reveals that Accused Nos.2 to 5 supported Respondent No.2 and her family members to set right the disputes. Except making a casual reference of the name of the Petitioner in the complaint, nothing is attributed against him. In the absence of any specific overt acts against the Petitioner/Accused No.5, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against him 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. 12. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.5 in C.C.No.352 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda 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:07.01.2025 Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.5640 of 2022 Dt.07.01.2025 Dinesh