Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

R.Sankaraiah R.L.Sankar Naidu 2 ... vs State Of A.P., Rep By P.P Another on 19 April, 2022

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7026 OF 2017

ORDER:-

     This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is

filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.385 of 2016 on

the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Tirupati.   Petitioners herein are arrayed as A.4, A.5

and A.7 in the said case.


     2.    Basing on a report lodged by 2nd respondent-

defacto complainant, police registered a case in crime

No.57 of 2015, and after completion of investigation, filed

charge sheet against the petitioners herein and others for

the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 354 IPC

and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The

allegations, in brief, may be stated as follows.

Marriage of 2nd respondent- defacto complainant with

A.1 took place on 04.03.2012 in Arya Vysya Kalyana

Mandapam, Tirupati as per hindu rites and customs, and

Rs.30.00 lakhs cash and 700 grams of gold jewels were

given towards dowry on the demand of A.1 to A.7. A.2 to

A.7 celebrated the marriage having knowledge that A.1 is

impotent and thereby cheated 2nd respondent- defacto

complainant. A.1 did not participate in sexual intercourse

with her and used to sleep separately, on the pretext that

till he gets H1 Visa, he will not participate in it. Later, A.1

alone went to America leaving her under the care of A.2 to

A.7, and they subjected her to physical and mental

harassment demanding additional dowry. When her father

agreed to give Rs.5.00 lakhs, A.1 took her to America and

subjected her to both physical and mental harassment for

want of additional dowry. When a mediation was held, A.2

to A.7 reiterated their demand for additional dowry. When

she forced A.1 for sexual intercourse, on 02.09.2015, A.1

admitted his impotency and requested not to reveal the

same to anybody. On 03.09.2015, when she was alone in

kitchen, A.2 approached her, caught hold of her hand and

demanded her to fulfil his sexual desires. Hence, the

report.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are related to A.1 and admittedly they are

residents of Chittoor district, a far away place from the

place where A.1 and others are residing; that a perusal of

the recitals in charge sheet shows that vague and bald

allegations have been made against the petitioners that

they demanded additional dowry and subjected 2nd

respondent-defacto complainant to both physical and

mental cruelty, and absolutely no date or time has been

mentioned either in the First Information Report or in the

statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; that apart from the

said accusation as against the petitioners, there is no other

material that the petitioners are involving in day to day

affairs of A.1 and 2nd respondent-defacto complainant.

It is his further contention that proceedings against

A.1 were quashed by this Court as per order dated

09.04.2019 in Criminal Petition No.9432 of 2018 and the

proceedings A.6 were quashed as per order dated

21.04.2017 in Criminal Petition No.1984 of 2017, and the

case of petitioners stand on better footing than that of A.1

and A.6.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

opposed the quash petition on the ground that there are

specific allegations contained in the charge sheet, though

omnibus in nature, and contentions raised by the learned

counsel for petitioners are all disputed questions of fact

and the same have to be decided in the course of trial and

this is a premature stage where this Court cannot interfere

in the matter.

6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent

powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be

exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give

effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of

justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the

power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be

exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that

too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not

be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the

reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations

made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer

to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in State of

Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.1, wherein the Apex

Court held,

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(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

AIR 1992 SC 604

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 F.I.R. 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 uncontroverted 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;

(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."

The above principle is well settled one and there

cannot be any dispute with regard to the said proposition of

law.

7. Perused the record. The accused are inter-

related to each other. A.1 and A.6 are brothers and sons of

A.2 and A.3. 1st petitioner/A.4 is younger brother of A.2

and 2nd petitioner/ A.5 is wife of A.4. 3rd petitioner/A.7 is

younger brother of A.3. The petitioners herein are residing

separately at different places in Chittoor district, whereas

A.1 is resident of Uthukottal, Thiruvallore district,

Tamilnadu State. They are no way concerned with the

day to day affairs of A.1 and 2nd respondent-defacto

complainant. A perusal of the recitals in the charge sheet

shows that omnibus accusation has been made as against

the petitioners that they demanded dowry from 2nd

respondent-defacto complainant. As contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, there is absolutely no

mention as to, on which date the said demand was made

and when she was subjected to harassment, and except a

vague and bald allegation that they demanded additional

dowry, there is absolutely no material to connect the

accused with the crime. The petitioners are also distantly

related to the accused and not immediate family of A.1, as

1st petitioner/A.4 is younger brother of A.2; 2nd petitioner/

A.5 is wife of A.4 and 3rd petitioner/A.7 is younger brother

of A.3.

8. A.1 filed H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2015 on the file of the

learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur under Section 13 (1)

(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against 2nd

respondent-defacto complainant for dissolution of

marriage. Vide judgment dated 17.03.2016, the learned

Judge passed a decree by dissolving marriage between A.1

and 2nd respondent-defacto complainant. It is pertinent to

mention here that 2nd respondent-defacto complainant did

not appear on the said date. Though the decree that has

been passed is ex parte, 2nd respondent-defacto

complainant did not choose to carry the same in appeal or

did not file a petition to set aside the ex parte decree.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

2nd respondent-defacto complainant had already got

married by another person by name S.Naidu on

01.02.2017.

10. It is also pertinent to mention here that A.1 filed

Criminal Petition No.9432 of 2018 before this Court and by

an order dated 09.04.2019, this Court quashed the

impugned proceedings as against A.1. Further, A.6 filed

Criminal Petition No.1984 of 2017 before this Court and as

per order dated 21.04.2017 in the said Criminal Petition,

the impugned proceedings were quashed as against A.6.

11. A perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that

the petitioners stand on a better footing with that of A.1

and A.6. Vague and bald accusations have been made as

against the petitioners that they demanded additional

dowry. In Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and others v. State of

Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :

(paragraph 17).

"We have carefully perused the allegations pointed out by the learned counsel, from the complaint of Respondent 2 Hima Pritam Sadaphule, dated 4.2.2010. There can be no doubt whatsoever, that the allegations leveled against Appellants 2 to 5 do not justify any inference, which would lead to the conclusion, that they could be held responsible, for an offence in the nature of Section 498-A of the Penal Code. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied in accepting the prayer made in the instant appeal, with reference to Appellants 2 to 5, and to order quashing of the first information report dated 6.3.2010, and the proceedings that may have arisen therefrom, including the charge-sheet dated 27.7.2010."

By any stretch of imagination, omnibus accusations

which have been made as against the petitioners would not

stand, more so, when the case as against A.1 and A.6 has

already been quashed. Hence, continuation of impugned

proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of

the process of the Court. Accordingly, the proceedings in

C.C. No.385 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati are quashed as against

the petitioners/A.4, A.5 and A.7.

12. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.