APHC010446702021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6530/2021 Between: Didla Mary Roselind @ Sarapu Rajilind ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. S DILIP JAYA RAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_6530_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.142 of 2021 on the file of Woman Police Station, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2. The petitioner herein is accused No.2 and is the mother of accused No.1. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant and the wife of accused No.1. On 17.08.2021, the 2nd respondent herein has filed a complaint before the police stating that she got married with the accused No.1 who belongs to Ganesh nagar, Rajahmundry, on 21.10.2015 at Holy Trinity Church, Near Aanam Kalakendram, Rajahmundry as per Christian Tradition. It is further stated that they have given Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner herein at the time of marriage as dowry. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent started leading her life at matrimonial home and was blessed with a daughter. Subsequently, the accused No.1 and the petitioner herein are alleged to have tortured the 2nd respondent for additional dowry though she has repaid Rs.8,00,000/- of debts which was taken by the 1st accused. As the 1st accused is irresponsible, the 2nd respondent along with her daughter went to her parents house with a hope that the behaviour of the 1st accused would change. The 1st accused has sold away the vehicle bought by the 2nd respondent, mortgaged the marriage chain of the 2nd respondent and has also mortgaged the vehicle of the father of the 2nd respondent. Though the 2nd respondent went back to the matrimonial house to lead marital life with the 1st accused, he did not change and started torturing for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further stated that the petitioner herein has also tortured the 2nd respondent verbally without understanding the problems of the 2nd respondent. Stating thus, the 2nd respondent requested the Police to initiate necessary action against the accused and accordingly, the Police have registered a case vide FIR.No.142 of 2021 on 17.08.2021 against the accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3,4 of D.P. Act. Seeking 3 VS,J Crlp_6530_2021 quashment of the said proceedings, the petitioner i.e. the 2nd accused has filed the present petition. 3. 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 the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner herein are vague and there is no absolute allegation that the 2nd respondent was put to harassment by the petitioner herein. In order to attract the offences under Section 498-A of IPC, it has to be categorically established that the allegations are of such nature as to drive the woman to commit suicide. The 2nd respondent has casually mentioned the name of the petitioner herein and no specific allegation was raised by the 2nd respondent. As such, the proceedings in FIR.No.142 of 2021 on the file of Woman Police Station, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District have to be quashed against the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would constitute offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3,4 of D.P. Act, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 22.11.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.142 of 2021 on the file of Woman Police Station, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District till the next date of hearing.” 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.142 of 2021 on the file of Woman Police Station, Rajahmundry, East 4 VS,J Crlp_6530_2021 Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 7. 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. 8. 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 Punjab1”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/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 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; 1AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_6530_2021 (iii) 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. 9. 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 Kumar2” 10. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3” 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: 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 VS,J Crlp_6530_2021 (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. (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. 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. The facts of the criminal petition are not in dispute. It can be seen from the complaint that the 2nd respondent herein has alleged that she is undergoing harassment from her husband i.e. the 1st accused and also the petitioner herein who is the mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent. As such, the 2nd respondent filed a case against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, which is extracted hereunder: 7 VS,J Crlp_6530_2021 “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.” 13. However, on a perusal of the complaint, no specific allegations were raised against the petitioner herein except stating that the petitioner has not helped the 2nd respondent though the 1st accused is harassing her. 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. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. 14. The Apex Court, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana4, observed that:- “6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives incrimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 4(2018) 14 SCC 452 8 VS,J Crlp_6530_2021 15. The Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others5, 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 no prima facie case is made out against them. 17. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioner herein, it would be unjust if the petitioner is 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 the Apex court in varied instances that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. If the criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioner herein, it would amount to abuse of process of law. As per the principle No.1 of the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1st Supra) if continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the 5 (2022) 6 SCC 599 9 VS,J Crlp_6530_2021 quashing of the impugned 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 proceedings. 18. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R.No.142 of 2021 on the file of Woman Police Station, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District are hereby quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 20.01.2025 Gss