Nambala Satya Deepti vs Hanumanthu Swapna Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1156 AP

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10936 OF 2015

ORDER:-

     This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), is filed to quash the

proceedings in crime No.54 of 2015 of Women police station,

Visakhapatnam city, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

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

petitioner herein is arrayed as A.2 in the said crime.


     2.    Heard Sri G.Ramagopal, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for 1st

respondent-defacto complainant and the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for 2nd respondent-State.


     3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

no part of cause of action for the offences alleged took place

in India; that the petitioner is not related to husband of 1 st

respondent-defacto complainant; that there is no physical

involvement of the petitioner with A.1 at the time of the

committing of the offences alleged; that there is no whisper of

instigation on the part of the petitioner in Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement given by the defacto complainant; that there are

no dates given as to when the petitioner instigated A.1 to

harass and also to get rid of the defacto complainant; that

even if the entire allegations in the report are taken as true,
                                        2




no prima facie case for the offences alleged has been made out

against the petitioner, and hence, he prayed to quash the

impugned proceedings against the petitioner.


         4.      In support of his contentions, learned counsel for

the petitioner relied on the following decisions.

         (i) In Preeti Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand &

another1, wherein it is held thus: (paras 32 and 37)

         "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.
         ...

Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in

(2010) 7 SCC 667

consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law."

(ii) In Neelu Chopra & another v. Bharti2, wherein it is

held thus: (paras 9 and 10).

"In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.

When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants."

(iii) In U.Suvetha v. State, by Inspector of Police &

another3, wherein it is held thus: (para 10)

"In the absence of any statutory definition, the term `relative' must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or grand-daughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word `relative' would depend upon the nature of the statute. It

(2009) 10 SCC 184

(2009) 6 SCC 757

principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption."

(iv) Unreported judgment of the Madras High Court

dated 22.02.2019 in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.2024 of 2016 and

Crl.M.P. (MD) No.1034 of 2016, wherein it is held thus: (paras

6 and 7).

"Under the above circumstances, the charges under Sections 498A & 506 (i) IPC as against the petitioners herein are liable to be set aside. Once the charges under Sections 498A, 506 (i) IPC are set aside, the offence under Section 109 IPC (punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment) will not be attracted and therefore, the same is also liable to be set aside."

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor contended that the allegations in the report make

out a prima facie case for the offences alleged against the

petitioner, and hence, there are no grounds to quash the

impugned proceedings.

6. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent-defacto

complainant contended that there are specific allegations of

abetting A.1 for committing the offences alleged, against the

petitioner/A.2; that petitioner is relative of A.1 and lived in

the matrimonial home of 2nd respondent and her husband

A.1; that a part of cause of action for the offences alleged took

place in Visakhapatnam, which is clear from the allegations

in the report; that as the uncontroverted allegations in the

report constitute a prima facie case against the petitioner for

the offences alleged against her, there are no grounds to

quash the impugned proceedings.

7. 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. There is also

no dispute with regard to the proposition that when the

allegations in the report constitute a prima facie case for a

cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of police to conduct

investigation and the same cannot be curtailed.

8. 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.4, 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

AIR 1992 SC 604

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 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.

9. Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, now it

has to be seen whether there are any grounds quash the

impugned proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 or not.

10. Perused the entire material available on record.

Basing on the report dated 04.04.2015 lodged by 1st

respondent-defacto complainant, police registered the

aforesaid crime. The allegations in the report are as follows:

Marriage of 1st respondent with A.1 in the crime was

performed on 17.03.2002 as per hindu customs, and on

demand, gold, silver and some cash, apart from a house site,

as mentioned in the report, were given as dowry at the time of

the marriage. Thereafter, they moved to United States of

America and they were blessed with two male children. A.1

subjected her to blame and humiliation as she was not doing

any job and used to abuse her and her father in filthy

language, apart from beating her. Thereafter, she was forced

to take up a job, but A.1 started diverting all her salary into a

joint account and she was left with no financial

independence. A.1 beat her up severely causing bruises all

over her face as she and her father refused to heed to his

request to sell away house site at Vijayawada. In February,

2014, A.1 forced her to take a job in New Jersey for which she

had to take a drive of 5 hours from their place of living, which

led to deterioration in her health and she was subjected to

mental stress. After the marriage, she never had any peace in

life because of her husband's greed for money and his force to

liquidate the properties given by her parents and part with

the proceeds to him.

It is further alleged that in July, 2014, petitioner, who is

a close relative (sister-in-law) of A.1, had come to USA to

pursue her M.S. at the instance and support of A.1. She was

to report to the University on 24.08.2014, but she came one

month in advance and started residing in the matrimonial

home from July, 2014. In that period, the defacto

complainant had been working in New Jersey where her work

schedule was three days in a week at New Jersey and she

used to come home only in week ends, and at that time, A.1

and the petitioner were staying alone and developed illicit

intimacy during her absence, and in October, 2014, she

noticed them in a compromising position in bed room.

It is specifically alleged that petitioner and A.1 used to

openly discuss as to how to get rid of the defacto

complainant, and the petitioner consistently insisted that if

A.1 gives divorce to the defacto complainant, the latter had to

go back to India in view of immigration technicalities, but A.1

used to pacify her stating that he was more interested in

appropriating the property, which is his main priority.

It is further alleged that at the instigation of the

petitioner, A.1 harassed the defacto complainant physically

and verbally, and in a fit of anger during a heated argument

over his adulterous relation with the petitioner, A.1 tried to

kill her by strangulation in the presence of children, and it led

to lodging of a case of Domestic Violence and Court at Ervin

passed a temporary order of protection against A.1.

It is further alleged that on 07.01.2015, father and

paternal uncle of defacto complainant met A.1 in

Vizakhapatnam, he demanded additional dowry of Rs.15.00

lakhs, threatening to give divorce to her, which resulted in

her father to part with the said money. Subsequently, after

returning to USA, under the instigation and influence of the

petitioner and her family members, A.1 started pressurizing

her to sell away the gold and silver that were in her

possession in USA to appropriate the money, and inspite of

the restraint orders passed by the Court was in force against

him, he continued to abuse her physically and mentally. He

started openly proclaiming that he wanted to get rid of her

and marry the petitioner for which parents of petitioner also

did not have any objection. Father of defacto complainant

met parents and brother of the petitioner in Vijayawada and

tried to explain the situation, but they refused to hear him

and have also appeared to be in the knowledge of all the

developments. Hence, the report.

11. A perusal of the allegations in the First

Information Report would disclose that petitioner is a close

relative (sister-in-law) of A.1. Further, there are allegations

that A.1 demanded additional dowry from father of the

defacto complainant when he met A.1 in Visakhapatnam by

threatening to give divorce and took an amount of Rs.15.00

lakhs. There are specific allegations against the petitioner

that she developed illicit intimacy with A.1 while she was

staying in the matrimonial home of A.1 and the defacto

complainant, and abetted A.1 to give divorce to the defacto

complainant, as a result of which the latter would be forced to

go back to India in view of immigration technicalities.

Admittedly, Court at Erwin passed temporary order of

protection against A.1 on 19.12.2014. There is also

allegation that on the influence and instigation of the

petitioner and her family members, A.1 started pressurizing

the defacto complainant to sell away her gold and silver to

appropriate the money as A.1 found liquidation of fixed assets

in India not being possible.

12. As can be seen from the aforesaid discussion,

there are serious allegations against the petitioner/A.2 about

abetting A.1 to commit the offences alleged against him. The

uncontroverted allegations in the First Information Report

would constitute a prima facie case for the offence of abetting

A.1 to commit the offences alleged against him. When a

prima facie case for a cognizable offence is made out, it is the

statutory duty of police to conduct investigation, and the said

duty cannot be curtained by this Court. Truth or otherwise of

the allegations in the First Information Report has to be

decided during the course of trial. This Court would not be in

a position to conduct roving enquiry with regard to

accusations contained in the First Information Report. In

view of the same, this Court, in a petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C., is not inclined to enquire into the matter truth or

otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information

Report. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for

the petitioner would not render any assistance to the case of

the petitioner, as they do not pertain to the offence

punishable under Section 109 IPC. Therefore, the

contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner

are not tenable. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the

impugned proceedings.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal

Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 04.03.2022 DRK

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10936 OF 2015

04.03.2022

DRK