APHC010719382022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10554/2022 Between: 1. SHAIK KOWSAR BEGUM, W/O KHASIM SIDDIQ, MUSLIM, R/O D.NO.2/292, NEHRUNAGAR CHOWK, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK KHASIM,, S/O KHASIM SIDDIQ, MUSLIM, R/O D.NO.2/292, NEHRUNAGAR CHOWK, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK SALMA BEGUM,, D/O KHASIM SIDDIQ, MUSLIM, R/O D.NO.2/292, NEHRUNAGAR CHOWK, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SHO, MUDDANUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. VELLEPU NAGESWARAMMA SALMA BEGUM, W/O SHAIK MASTANVALLI, R/O UPPALURU VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. MANUBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.423 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu, for the 2 offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19612. 2. Heard Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Notice sent to Respondent No.2 was returned as ‘refused’. Hence, treated as ‘served’. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are the parents and unmarried sister of Accused No.1, who is the husband of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the matter of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 had taken place on 24.01.2011 as per Muslim caste customs. It is submitted that, after the marriage, the coupled left for Kuwait and got registered the marriage in Kuwait in the year 2013. Learned counsel would further submit that, as per the contents of the complaint, the couple returned to India on14.02.2018 and put up a separate family in the village of Respondent No.2. It is alleged against the Petitioners that on 02.11.2019, Respondent No.2 and her family members went to the house of the Petitioners, where, they have done poison experiment (Visha Prayogam) against her. The complaint further would show that Accused No.1, who is her husband, left her company on 05.08.2019. Learned counsel would further submit that, except a stray sentence regarding the poison experiment against Respondent No.2 on 02.11.2019. Learned counsel would submit that, nothing is attributed in specific against the Petitioners, except vague and 1 for short ‘IPC’ 2 for short ‘DP Act’ 3 omnibus allegations. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, Court may pass appropriate orders. 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another3, 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 3 2024 INSC 369 4 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) 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and Another4, held 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. It appears that in the case on hand despite raising of specific contentions which require deeper consideration, may be taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the complainant that the challan was presented and the matter stood listed for framing charges and hence, it would be open to accused No.5 to raise all plea at the time of framing of the charges, the Court refrained itself from considering the contentions raised against accused No.5.” 8. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others vs. State of Telangana and another5, the Hon’ble Apex Court held 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. 4 SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022, dated 26.11.2024 5 2024 INSC 953 5 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.” 9. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the complaint would show that, no specific attributions were made against the Petitioners, except making a casual reference about the poison experiment against Respondent No.2 by the Petitioners on 02.11.2019. The entire record does not show any material to buttress the allegations made against the Petitioners regarding the poison experiment alleged to have been effected on Respondent No.2 on 02.11.2019. 10. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the backdrop of the legal positions referred to supra, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, except omnibus allegations, there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. In the absence of verifiable material to proceed further against the Petitioners in this matter, continuation of criminal proceedings against them is sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.423 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu, for the 6 offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:17.02.2025 Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10554 of 2022 Dt.17.02.2025 Dinesh