APHC010029582021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 400/2021 Between: Karumoju Santoshsoni and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND Karumoju Aruna and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. T JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. REDDY VENKATA RAMANA The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_400_2021 ORDER: 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.38 of 2020 on the file of Sompeta Police Station, Srikakulam District. 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 5 and the 1st respondent is the defacto complainant. The 1st respondent has filed a complaint with the Police stating that her marriage was held with the 1st respondent who is a resident of Jagadalpur Village, Chattisgarh on 24.02.2007 in Vizag as per Hindu customs and traditions; the parents of the 1strespondent have also given Rs.2,00,000/-, 15 tulas of gold, one kilo of silver, 3 tulas gold chain, bracelet, ring and utensils worth Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry. It is stated in the complaint that the 1st respondent was allowed to live along with her husband only for 10 days after which she was sent out stating that they don’t like the marriage. Later, the 1st respondent left to Hyderabad on job purpose and while the 1st respondent went to Jagdalpur, all the accused have harassed the 1st respondent physically and mentally for additional dowry. Later, the 1st respondent went to Sompeta to her parents’ house, where she received a divorce notice. Subsequently, the 1st respondent has filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta and the said suit was decreed. Stating thus, the 1st respondent has submitted her complaint and upon receipt of which, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Requesting to quash the said proceedings the petitioners have filed the present petition. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the complaint and has sought quashment of the FIR on the ground that the marriage of the 1st respondent with the 1st petitioner herein was long back dissolved by a decree of divorce and as such, 3 VS,J Crlp_400_2021 the present criminal prosecution under the aforesaid sections of law is not maintainable and that it amounts to abuse of process of law. To prove the same, the learned counsel has also placed before this Court a copy of the decree passed by the Family Court, Bastar (Chattisgarh). He further contended that without preferring an appeal against the aforesaid decree, the 1st respondent has filed the present complaint with false allegations so as to harass the petitioners. As such, requested to quash the FIR No.38 of 2020 in respect of all the petitioners herein. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 29.01.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…Therefore, in the said facts and circumstance of the case, in view of the decree of divorce that is placed before this Court, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.38 of 2020 of Sompeta Police Station, Srikakulam District,…” 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.38 of 2020 on the file of Sompeta Police Station, Srikakulam 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 4 VS,J Crlp_400_2021 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 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 1AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_400_2021 Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash 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_400_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. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. It can be seen from the complaint that the 1st respondent has alleged that subsequent to the marriage of the 1st respondent with the 1st petitioner, all the petitioners herein have harassed the 1st respondent physically and mentally for additional dowry. Hence, the Police have registered a case against all the accused under Section 498(A) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 13. The Apex Court, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana4, observed that:- “6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives incrimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 4(2018) 14 SCC 452 7 VS,J Crlp_400_2021 14. The Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others5, while referring to its earlier judgment in K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana (referred supra), held that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and must keep in mind that relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations. 15. The above-mentioned decision clearly demonstrate that the Apex Court, at numerous instances has expressed concern over 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, the Apex 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. 16. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein, it would be unjust if these petitioners 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 the Apex court in varied instances that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. As such, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed in so far as the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. 5 (2022) 6 SCC 599 8 VS,J Crlp_400_2021 17. As far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is a well settled principle of law that criminal prosecution against the husband, when the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce, is not maintainable. Admittedly, the marriage of the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent was dissolved and the Family Court, Bastar (Chattisgarh) has also passed a decree of divorce on 31.07.2018. If the criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioner No.1 herein, it would amount to abuse of process of law. As per the principle No.1 of the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1st Supra) if, 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, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle 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. 18. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R.No.38 of 2020 on the file of Sompeta Police Station, Srikakulam District are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 07.01.2025 Gss