HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1341 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner is Accused No.4 in Crime No.96 of 2021 of
Kalagiri Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, for offences under
Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
2. The 2nd respondent has been served with notice in
March, 2022. However, there is no appearance on her behalf.
3. The gravamen of the charge in the complaint is that
the husband and other family members of the family of the
husband, including the petitioner, who is the elder brother of
the husband of the de facto complainant, had been harassing
the de facto complainant, to bring additional dowry.
4. The complainant states that the de facto
complainant had married the younger brother of the petitioner
about six years back. At the time of marriage, Rs.6 lakhs is said
to have been paid as dowry. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to
have demanded Rs.5 lakhs to do real estate business for the
husband of the de facto complainant, due to which the jewellery
of the de facto complainant is said to have been taken away.
Again after a year or so, the petitioner is said to have come to 2
the house of the de facto complainant's husband and demanded
another sum of Rs.4 lakhs. There are further allegations against
the other accused in the crime.
5. The present application has been filed for quashing
the complaint against the petitioner.
6. Sri K.Sathakarni, learned counsel for the petitioner
would draw the attention of this Court to the certificate issued
by the Area Hospital, Kavali stating that the petitioner and his
brother are both suffering from Retinitis Pigmentosa, which is a
degenerative eye disease which would result in a progressive
loss of vision by the person suffering from this disease.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the de facto complainant had no compliant against anybody
till the said disease came to light. Immediately after she came to
know that both the petitioner and his brother are suffering from
such disease, the de facto complainant had sought separation
with huge amount of money being paid to her. As the family of
the petitioner had refused to agree to such demands, the
present complaint has been filed.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also
point out that the allegations against the petitioner herein are 3
that he had made general demands for dowry and no specifics
relating to the time, date or place where such demands were
raised have been set out in the complaint. He would further
submit that complaint does not anywhere state that cruelty or
harassment had been visited upon the 2nd respondent by the
petitioner herein.
9. The learned counsel would submit that in these
circumstances, no case is made out against the petitioner. He
would also rely upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors1.,
to contend that in such circumstances, the complaint requires
to be quashed.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that
there are allegations against the petitioner to the extent of
stating that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on
one instance and another a sum of Rs.4 lakhs by going to the
house of the de facto complainant's husband.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar
and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., are held as follows:
18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed
1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 4
concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and 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, 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.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.
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.
12. The case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was a
case where the matter was pending at the stage of trial. In the 5
present case even though the complaint is still under
investigation, there can be no improvement over the complaint
in such cases and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court would squarely apply to the present case also.
13. In the circumstances, the complaint in Crime No.96
of 2021 dated 11.11.2021, on the file of Kalagiri Police Station,
SPSR Nellore District is quashed against the petitioner.
14. However, the investigation in the complaint against
other accused shall continue.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
01.11.2022 RJS 6
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1341 of 2022
01.11.2022 RJS
