Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nimmagadda Rama Krishna vs The State Sub Inspector Of Police on 2 December, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri Nimmagadda Ramakrishna, party-in-person and learned
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.2472 of 2020 on
the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, for the offences punishable
under Section 498-A and 324 IPC read with Section 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The allegations against the petitioner, in the complaint as
well as in the charge sheet, are that the petitioner, suspecting the fidelity
of the de facto complainant had started torturing her and used to talk
indecently with the colleagues of the de facto complainant and with her
relatives. Further, the petitioner continued to harass the de facto
complainant physically and mentally after she had retired from her job in
the Women's College, Rajamahendravaram, in December 2018. The
petitioner is also said to have thrown a teapoy on the de facto
complainant on 13.05.2020, due to which, she had suffered a fracture on
her leg as well as her finger. Nine witnesses were shown as witnesses in
the list of witnesses.
4. The petitioner has filed the present petition to quash
C.C.No.2472 of 2020.
2 RRR,J
Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegations in the
complaint as well as the charge sheet are false. It is the further contention
of the petitioner that the allegations are vague and general and no
specifics, of any nature, have been set out either in the complaint or in
the charge sheet. The petitioner contends that the Magistrate had taken
cognizance of the charge sheet without application of mind and in a
routine manner.
6. The petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur vs. The State of Punjabe1; Sushil
Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and Ors.,2 and Geeta Mehrotra
and Anr., vs. State of U.P., and Anr.,3
7. The de facto complainant was impleaded as the 2nd
respondent by order of this Court dated 28.07.2022. This Court, on
01.09.2022, had recorded that the notice on the de facto complainant had
been served and the matter would be heard on merits. As there has been
no appearance for the de facto complainant till now, the matter was heard
and reserved for orders.
8. A perusal of the allegations relating to Section 498-A IPC, in
the charge sheet, would show that the allegations are vague and general
in nature. The essential allegation is that the petitioner, suspecting the
fidelity of the de facto complainant, had harassed the de facto
1960 AIR 862 = 1960 SCR (3) 311
(2005) 6 SCC 281
(2012) 10 SCC 741
3 RRR,J
Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022
complainant physically and mentally. There are no details as to when and
why the petitioner is said to have suspected the fidelity of the de facto
complainant, the dates or details of the harassment mental and physical,
meted out by the petitioner on the de facto complainant.
9. It is now well settled in Kahkashan Kausar and Ors., vs.
State of Bihar and Ors.,4 and Preeti Gupta and Anr., vs. State of
Jharkhand and Anr.,5 that general and omnibus allegations without
specifics do not make out an offence under Section 498-A IPC. As noticed
above, as there are no specific allegations but only general, vague and
omnibus allegations in the present case, the case against the petitioner to
the extent of Section 498-A IPC would have to be quashed.
10. The allegations in the complaint and the charge sheet only
speak of cruelty on the de facto complainant on account of the suspicion
of the petitioner regarding the fidelity of the de facto complainant. There
is no allegation that the petitioner had demanded and sought additional
dowry or that the cruelty was meted out on the de facto complainant for
the purpose of demanding dowry. Further, the allegation that dowry was
given, relates to the year 1980. In the circumstances, no case is made out
against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
11. There is a specific allegation against the petitioner that on
13.05.2020, the petitioner had beaten the de facto complainant with a
teapoy in anger due to which the de facto complainant had suffered a
(2022) 6 SCC 599
(2010) 7 SCC 667
4 RRR,J
Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022
fracture in her leg and finger. The petitioner relying upon the wound
certificate would submit that the de facto complainant had refused to get
her fractured leg and finger X-rayed. This would mean that the de facto
complainant had not suffered any such injury and the allegation against
the petitioner is a false allegation.
12. The allegation relating to the offence under Section 324 IPC
would require further trial before any conclusion can be drawn in this
regard.
13. Accordingly, this criminal petition is partly allowed quashing
C.C.No.2472 of 2020 to the extent of the offences under Section 498-A
IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, the trial
against the offence under Section 324 IPC shall go on.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
2nd December, 2022
Js.
5 RRR,J
Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Crl.P.No.2455 of 2022
2nd December, 2022
Js.
