1 APHC010702272022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10306/2022 Between: IndalaNagajyothi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. A RAVI SHANKAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10306/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/ Accused No. 4, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against her in C.C.No.2006 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Ms. Hemamalini, Learned Counsel representing Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Ravi Shankar, 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 petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the married sister of A1 who is the husband of the defacto complainant. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioner is employed at U.S, she has left for U.S on 26.12.2018. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioner has come down to India on 24.01.2015 to attend the marriage and she left for U.S on 15.05.2015. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence, except omnibus and vague allegations against her, nothing is attributed against the petitioner to continue criminal proceedings against her. It is alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner and her husband insisting the respondent No.2 to pay the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- which was taken by A1 3 as a loan from them. Learned Counsel would further submit that all the allegations attributed against the petitioner on the face of them do not attract the offence under Sections 498A and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Counsel finally submits that the petitioner was roped into the criminal case as an arm-twist to bind A1 to settle their scores. Learned Counsel finally prays for quashment of the case against the A4/petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that apart from omnibus allegations against the petitioner, specific allegations are made against her as that she used to insist the respondent No.2 to discharge the loan which was borrowed by A1 from A4 and her husband. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioner herein is the root cause for the disturbances in the family life of A1 and respondent No.2. Learned Counsel would further submit that it is not a fit case for quashment and prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the respondent No.2. 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 4 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 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 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 5 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 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. To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no 2 2024 INSC 369 32024 INSC 896 6 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. 11. The allegations made against the petitioner/A4 in brief are: The marriage of A1 and the defacto complainant was performed on 24.01.2015 and at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid towards Dowry, 6 Tulas of Gold and 1 Kilo of Silver was presented. Further an amount Rs.2,00,000/- was paid towards Adapaduchulanchanms. Since the husband of the Defacto Complainant is working in Pune, the Defacto Complainant joined her husband at Pune. The Defacto Complainant was harassed by her husband and in-laws for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Complainant was blessed with a daughter on 08.01.2017. It is submitted that the allegation against the Petitioner/A-4 is that A-4 used to insist for discharge the debt of Rs.4,00,000/- incurred by A-1 from the Petitioner/A-4. Further it is alleged in January, 2019 A-1 and A-4 went to the Parents house of Defacto Complainant and insulted her for not allowing her husband to go to Canada. 12. Considering the submissions made, a fair look at the contents of the complaint which was submitted to the Police by the respondent No.2 and in the backdrop of the legal position referred supra, as rightly put by the learned 7 Counsel for the petitioner, except omnibus and vague allegations made against the petitioner, nothing is attributed in specific to attract the offence punishable under Sections 498A and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. No contrary material was placed before this Court disputing the argument that the petitioner is married sister who came down to India to attend the marriage and later she left for U.S and she has not even visited since 26.12.2018. In absence of specific incidents referred against the petitioner in the complaint or in the material which was collected by the Police during the course of investigation, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner/A4 in C.C.No.2006 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 06.02.2025 UPS 8 47 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10306 of 2022 Dt.06.02.2025 UPS