Gujjala Pullamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 9210 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

                 Criminal Petition No.2734 of 2020
Order:

       This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed

by the petitioners 1 to 5/A2 to A6 seeking to quash the proceedings

against them in CC No.56 of 2020 on the file of the learned IV

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor district.


2.     A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners herein/A2

to A6 and accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section

498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.


3.     The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows.              The

marriage of the de facto complainant was performed with A1 at

Kanipakam in the presence of elders as per the Hindu Customs and

Rites on 01.10.2010 and the marriage was got registered in Sub-

Registrar's Office. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, on the

demand of A1 to A6, the mother of the de facto complainant

presented cash of Rs.6.00 Lakhs, 5 sovereigns of bracelet, 3

sovereigns of gold chain, white stoned gold ring - 8 Grams and one

Sada gold ring - 8 grams to A1.            Apart from that, her parents

presented 25 sovereigns of gold items to the de facto complainant

and Rs.1.00 Lakh to A3 being sister-in-law of the de facto
                                        2


complainant. After the marriage, as per the wish of A1, the mother of

the de facto complainant presented Rs.1.50 lakhs for household

articles. The de facto complainant joined for marital life at her in-laws

house and lead her marital life for about 3 months. Thereafter, it is

alleged that, A1 to A6 started demanding the de facto complainant to

bring additional dowry. They demanded the mother of the de facto

complainant to apply for loan of Rs.20.00 Lakhs for construction of a

new house and to purchase a new car. A1 to A6 harassed the de

facto complainant and her mother both mentally and physically

demanding additional dowry. Hence, the de facto complainant filed a

complaint in Mahila Police Station, Tirupati and, based on the said

complaint, a case in Crime No.32 of 2019 of Mahila Police Station,

Tirupati, under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, was registered.       After investigation, the police filed

charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was

numbered as CC No.56 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.


4.     Learned counsel for the petitioners 1 to 5/A2 to A6 submits

that except making omnibus allegations against the petitioners/A2 to
                                   3


A6, there is no other material to connect the petitioners/A2 to A6 to

the alleged crime.


5.    Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

did not appear before this Court on earlier occasions thrice. Even

today, when the case came up for hearing, there is no representation

on behalf of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.

6. Heard. Perused the record.

7. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 herein are the mother, sister, brother-in-

law, uncle and aunt respectively of accused No.1. The marriage of

the de facto complainant was performed with accused No.1 on

01.10.2010 as per their caste Custom and Rites. The accusations

against all the accused is that after the marriage they harassed the

de facto complainant for want of additional dowry. Accused Nos.2 to

6 instigated A1, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, in

harassing the de facto complainant to get additional dowry. In

respect of the same, the de facto complainant gave complaint as

against all the accused. The police, on receipt of the said complaint,

registered it as a case in Crime No.32 of 2019 for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. The police investigated into the case and filed

charge sheet and the same was numbered as CC No.56 of 2020 on

the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

8. A perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that all the near

relatives of accused No.1 were roped in, by the de facto complainant

on the ground that they harassed her for additional dowry. Learned

counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd respondent

herein/de facto complainant was working as Senior Inspector in the

office of the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Dharmavaram.

Thereafter, she was transferred to the office of the Divisional

Cooperative Officer at Tirupati on 14.09.2015. Since the year 2015,

the de facto complainant was residing at Tirupati along with her

husband i.e, accused No.1 and accused No.2, who is the mother of

accused No.1. The alleged incident is said to have taken place at

Tirupati. Admittedly, except the mother of A1 i.e., petitioner

No.1/A2, all the other accused Nos.3 to 6 are residents of Anantapur,

which is at a distance of about 200 KMs from the place where the de

facto complainant resided. The petitioners 2 to 5/A3 to A6 would not

in any way interfere with the day to day affairs of the de facto

complainant and accused No.1. In respect of the petitioners 2 to

5/A3 to A6 are concerned, except making omnibus allegations against

them that all of them harassed the de facto complainant and

instigated A1 to harass the de facto complainant to bring additional

dowry, there is no other material to connect them to the alleged

crime.

9. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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

AIR 1992 SC 604

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 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."

10. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on a decision in Preeti

Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand & another2, wherein it was

held thus: (paragraphs 30 to 34).

"30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.

31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under:

"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the

(2010) 7 SCC 667

number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations."

11. He also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mirza

Iqbal @ Golu and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,3

wherein it was held thus: (paragraphs 11 and 12).

"11. The appellants are brother-in-law and mother-inlaw respectively of the deceased. A perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which a crime was registered, does not indicate any specific allegations by disclosing the involvement of the appellants. It is the specific case of the 1st appellant that he was working as a cashier in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, which is at about 40 kms from Gorakhpur. The alleged incident was on

2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251

24.07.2018 at about 8 p.m. When the investigation was pending, the 1st appellant has filed affidavit before Senior Superintendent of Police on 08.08.2018, giving his employment details and stated that he was falsely implicated. It was his specific case that during the relevant time, he was working at ICICI Bank, Khalilabad branch, Gorakhpur and his mother was also staying with him. The Branch Manager has endorsed his presence in the branch, showing in-time at 09 : 49 a.m. and out-time at 06 : 25 p.m. Even in the statement of 2nd respondent recorded by the police and also in the final report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., except omnibus and vague allegations, there is no specific allegation against the appellants to show their involvement for the offences alleged. This Court, time and again, has noticed making the family members of husband as accused by making casual reference to them in matrimonial disputes. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, in support of her case, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh1. In the aforesaid case, this Court in identical circumstances, has quashed the proceedings by observing that family members of husband were shown as accused by making casual reference to them. In the very same judgment, it is held that a large number of family members are shown in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and the contents do not disclose their active involvement, as such, taking cognizance of the matter against them was not justified. It is further held that taking cognizance in such type of cases results in abuse of judicial process. Paras 18 and 25 of the said judgment, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, read as under:

"18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against

the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.

25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law.

Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial

disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."

12. From a perusal of the complaint filed by the nd 2 respondent and the final report filed by the police under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., We are of the view that the aforesaid judgment fully supports the case of the appellants. Even in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, it is not disputed that the 1st appellant was working in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, but merely stated that there was a possibility to reach Gorakhpur by 8 p.m. Though there is an allegation of causing injuries, there are no other external injuries noticed in the postmortem certificate, except the single ante-mortem injury i.e. ligature mark around the neck, and the cause of death is shown as asphyxia. Having regard to the case of the appellants and the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that except vague and bald allegations against the appellants, there are no specific allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute them for the offences alleged. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra1, which squarely applies to the case of the appellants, we are of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings."

12. He also placed reliance on a decision in Kahkashan Kausar @

Sonam Vs State Of Bihar4, wherein it was 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

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

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 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."

13. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court

categorically held that a tendency has been developed for roping in

all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in order to

browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband and

the accusations against the relatives of the husband, if omnibus in

nature, have to be curtailed at the threshold.

14. All the allegations are made against accused No.1. Since the

petitioners 2 to 5/A3 to A6 are residing elsewhere at a far away place,

they would not in any way interfere with the day to day affairs of the

de facto complainant and accused No.1 and only with a view to

harass accused No.1 and with an ulterior motive, they were roped in

by the de facto complainant alleging that they harassed her

demanding additional dowry. In view of the principle laid down in the

above cases, this Court feels that continuation of proceedings as

against the petitioners 2 to 5 herein/A3 to A6 is nothing but abuse of

process of Court, since the accusation made against them is only

omnibus in nature. Except making omnibus allegations against the

petitioners 2 to 5/A3 to A6, there is no other material against them to

connect with the alleged crime. Therefore, this Court is inclined to

quash the proceedings in respect of petitioners 2 to 5/A3 to A6 only.

15. In respect of petitioner No.1/A2 is concerned, who is the

mother of accused No.1, she is residing with the de facto complainant

and accused No.1. Since there are accusations as against petitioner

No.1/A2, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against

her. However, since petitioner No.1/A2 herein is a woman, aged

about nearly 60 years, her presence is hereby dispensed with, except

on the dates, where the learned Magistrate feels that her presence is

necessary.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Criminal

Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings in CC No.56 of 2020 on

the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati, Chittoor district are hereby quashed as against the

petitioners 2 to 5 herein/A3 to A6 only.

17. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_____________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date:01.12.2022 Nsr

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.2734 of 2020

Date:01.12.2022 Nsr