1 Dr.VJPJ, CRL.P.No. 10427/2022 APHC010703932022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10427/2022 Between: BankaapuriKoteswara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. THANDAVA YOGESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VJPJ, CRL.P.No. 10427/2022 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10427/2022 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. 2 & 5, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in CC.No.754 of 2022 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur. 2. Heard Sri T.Yogesh, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Notice is served on the respondent No.2. Though the respondent No.2 entered appearance through their Advocate, Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, there is no representation for the respondent No.2. Heard Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that except omnibus allegations made against the petitioners, nothing is attributed in specific whether to attract Section 498-A or Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioners are the father and brother of A-1 who is the husband of the respondent No.2 i.e., the defacto complainant. Learned Counsel would further submit that the information which was given to the Police for registration of Crime itself shows that A1 and the respondent No.2 put up separate family. Even then, the husband continued the harassment against the wife. Learned counsel would further submit that 3 Dr.VJPJ, CRL.P.No. 10427/2022 continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners only on the allegations that at their instigation, A1 has harassed his wife for additional dowry is mere abuse of process of law. Learned counsel finally prays for quashment of the case against the petitioners. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that court may pass appropriate orders, since no specific allegations are made against the petitioners. Determination by the Court: 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. 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 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 4 Dr.VJPJ, CRL.P.No. 10427/2022 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) 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 2 2024 INSC 369 5 Dr.VJPJ, CRL.P.No. 10427/2022 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 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) 9. 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. 32024 INSC 896 6 Dr.VJPJ, CRL.P.No. 10427/2022 10. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, the information which was submitted to the Police, the statement of the respondent No.2 which was recorded by the investigating agency coupled with the report filed by the Police would not show any specific allegations against the petitioners to maintain the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 498-A IPC or Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. There is some force in the arguments that only to bend the A1 to their terms, the petitioners were roped in this criminal case who are the family members of the husband.In the backdrop of the legal positions referred supra and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners who are the father and brother of the husband only on the vague allegation that at their instigation, husband harassed his wife for additional dowry and continuing such proceedings against them is sheer abuse of process of law. 11. In that view, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners/A2 and A5 in CC.No.754 of 2022 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 12.02.2025 UPS 7 Dr.VJPJ, CRL.P.No. 10427/2022 20 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10427 of 2022 Dt.12.02.2025 UPS 8 Dr.VJPJ, CRL.P.No. 10427/2022