1 APHC010481022022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7332/2022 Between: Mandava Bhaskar and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KRISHNA MURTHY SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. Y N ANJANEYACHARYULU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7332/2022 ORDER: 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.1 to 4, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.3708 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. Heard Sri S.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y.N.Anajaneyacharyulu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are A1 to A4. A1 is the husband of the respondent No.2. A2 and A3 are the father and mother of A1 respectively. A4 is the married sister of A1. Learned counsel would further submit that the marriage of A1 and the respondent No.2 took place on 11.12.2013. During the wedlock, the couple were blessed with a male child in the year 2015. Learned counsel would further submit that A2 and A3 are Government Employees working in Vijayawada. Likewise, A4 is married sister. Her marriage took place in the year 2007, much earlier to the marriage of A1 and the respondent No.2. She has been residing at her matrimonial house along with her husband and children in Pune. She is also working. Learned counsel would further submit that a case has been lodged against the respondent No.2 and her parents on 3 20.03.2020 on the complaint of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that there was exchange of notices between the wife and husband. At last, A1 filed divorce petition before the Bangalore Court in the year 2020. Learned counsel would further submit that A1 and the respondent No.2 have been residing separately since 2019. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 filed maintenance case, DVC case and also petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel would further submit that the present complaint has been lodged on 04.06.2020. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. The respondent No.2 lodged this case only as an armtwist to bend the husband and family members to her terms. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners. A3 lodged the complaint against the respondent No.2. A1/husband also filed Guardian O.P., Divorce petition before the Bangalore Court. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that maintenance was granted to the respondent No.2 before the Bangalore Court. Learned counsel finally submits that contentions raised in the present petition is matter of defence and disputed facts are there. This court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot appreciate the evidence. Learned counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 4 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the case 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 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. 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, 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 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 5 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) 8. 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 2 2024 INSC 369 6 individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.” (emphasis supplied) 9. In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another3, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld 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 cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions.” (emphasis supplied) 10. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and Another4, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:: “31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives 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 complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32024 INSC 896 42024 INSC 953 7 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” (emphasis supplied) 11. 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. 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. 12. Considering the submissions and on a fair look at the contents of the information which was given to the Police by the respondent No.2, there are no specific allegations made against A4 who is the married sister of A1. Admittedly, the marriage of A4 took place much prior to the marriage of A1 and the respondent No.2. She has been in the company of her husband in the matrimonial house at Pune. Coming to the case of A2 and A3, they are 8 residents of Vijayawada and they are Government Employees. Even as per the contents of the complaint, after the marriage, the couple resided at Bangalore. A1 harassed the wife physically and mentally. It is her case that she has approached the parent-in-laws but they have not taken care of her and she was thrown out from the house in Vijayawada. Even on the face of it, there are no specific allegations made against A2 to A4 as per the contents of the charge sheet and other material placed on record, continuing criminal proceedings against A2 to A4 is mere abuse of process of law. It is not the case that A1 and respondent No.2 residing with A2 to A4 under the same roof for considerably period of time. In the light of the legal position referred supra, continuing criminal proceedings against A2 to A4 is mere abuse of process of law. Coming to the case of A1, several allegations made against him that he has harassed the wife physically and mentally. In that view, the petition deserves dismissal for A1. 13. In the result, the Criminal petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings initiated against Accused Nos., 2 to 4. The Criminal Petition is dismissed with regard to Accused No.1. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 28.01.2025 UPS 9 76 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.7332 of 2022 Dt.28.01.2025 UPS