APHC010024622021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 296/2021 Between: K Jagannadha Sarma, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The Station House Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VINJAMURI RANGA BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following order: 2 VS,J Crlp_296_2021 ORDER: 1. 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.331 of 2020 on the file of Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, pending against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 herein is the husband, the petitioner No.2 is the father in law and the petitioner No.3 is the mother in law of the respondent No.2. On 02.10.2020, the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before Police stating that on 12.05.2013, she got married with accused No.1. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.1,30,000/- in cash and Rs.4,00,000/- worth of gold and silver ornaments towards dowry to the accused No.1. They lived happily for some time. Thereafter, at the instance of the accused Nos.2 & 3, the accused No.1 started harassing the respondent No.2 both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Unbearable with the harassment of the accused No.1 to 3, the respondent No.2 lodged a report to Police seeking necessary action. Consequently, the S.H.O., Sarparavam Police Station registered a case in crime No.331 of 2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC & 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Seeking quashment of the said proceedings, the petitioners i.e. the accused Nos.1 to 3 filed the present petition. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners herein are vague and there is no specific allegation that the 2nd respondent was put to harassment by the petitioners herein. The 2nd respondent has casually mentioned the name of the petitioners herein and no specific allegation was raised by the 2nd respondent. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 has 3 VS,J Crlp_296_2021 filed FCOP No.1634 of 2016 on the file of the learned Family Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. Vide order, dated 03.06.2017, the learned Family Judge has passed decree in favour of the petitioner No.1 by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. Surprisingly, the present complaint has been lodged in the year 2020. As such, the proceedings in FIR.No.331 of 2020 of Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District are liable to be quashed against the petitioners herein. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C., and Sections 3, 4 of the D.P. Act, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. It is seen that when the Criminal Petition came up for hearing on 27.01.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be stay of further proceedings pursuant to registration of FIR in Crime No.331 of 2020 of Sarpavaram Police Station, 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.331 of 2020 on the file of Sarpavaram Police Station, East 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 4 VS,J Crlp_296_2021 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; (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 1AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_296_2021 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: (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. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 VS,J Crlp_296_2021 (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. On perusal of the material available on record, it clearly discloses that all the instances that are alleged in the complaint have taken place immediately after marriage in the year 2014 and 2015 whereas, present report came to be lodged in the year 2020 which is subsequent to the dissolution of the marriage on 03.06.2017. However, it is the settled law that a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is not maintainable after dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that if the criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioners herein, it would amount to abuse of process of law. Applying the principle of natural justice 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. 7 VS,J Crlp_296_2021 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings in F.I.R.No.331 of 2022 on the file of Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, pending against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 27.01.2025 PKR 8 VS,J Crlp_296_2021 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 292 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 296/2021 27.01.2025 PKR