Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K. Damodaran, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 September, 2022

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6287 OF 2021

ORDER:-

       This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the

Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed, by the A2

to A5 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3887 of 2021

on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,

Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

     2. The allegations, in brief, in the charge sheet may

be stated as follows:

      On 11.11.2016, the marriage of 2nd respondent

herein who is the de facto complainant was performed

with A1. A2 and A3 who are the petitioners 1 and 2

herein are the parents and A4 and A5 who are the

petitioners 3 and 4 herein are the brother and sister-in-

law of A1 respectively. The de facto complainant/2nd

respondent herein gave report to police alleging that at

the time of her marriage with the A1, he was working as

Accountant in Abudabi of U.A.E. and on demand, her

parents gave cash of Rs.3,00,000/- and gold ornaments

worth Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and she lived with

her husband for about one month at Arakkonam,

Tamilnadu State. Her husband used to spend during

that one month period of her stay with him, with his

friends and that he had no interest at all in leading

sexual life with her, and after one month he left for

Abudabi without informing her as to when he would take

her to there. However, during the month of February,

2017, she went alone to Abudabi and stayed with her

husband for about three (3) months. Even during that

time also he did not at all show any interest towards her

and on the other hand he used to spend much time with

his friends. When she made enquiries, she came to know

that her husband (A1) is a gay. When she became

pregnant he forced her to go to India and that A1

harassed her both physically and mentally stating that

unless she brings cash of Rs.30,00,000/- and 10

sovereigns of gold he would not allow her and sent her

forcibly to India. On 03.11.2017 she gave birth to a

female child at her parents' house. Her husband (A1) and

her parents-in-law (A2 and A3) came to her at Tirupati

and made galata for giving birth to a female child and

also demanded her to bring cash of Rs.30,00,000/-

towards additional dowry else she will not be allowed to

lead matrimonial life. In the 5th month of her child, she

went to her in-laws house with her parents and though

she was not allowed by her parents-in-law she forcibly

stayed in their house for about 40 days and during that

time her husband returned from Abudabi and then

onwards all the accused started harassment both

mentally and physically and finally she was necked out

from the house by keeping her child in a room locked, by

stating that she will be allowed only if she brings cash of

Rs.30,00,000/- and gold of 10 sovereigns by selling the

land which is in her name. She then gave report in

Arakkonam Police station and the police conducted

mediation and handed over the child to her and advised

her to go to her parents' house,. Then she left to her

parents' house. The accused did not heed to the advice of

elders. After her husband/ the A1 left for Abudabi again,

on 13.2.2020, she too went to Abudabi along with her

daughter and found her husband staying in the house

with some male persons and he threatened her and also

necked out her. Then she returned to India to her

parents' house and that the Accused did not come and

take her to lead marital life.

Basing on the said report the police registered the

case on 05.11.2020 and after conducting investigation

filed charge-sheet alleging that all the accused

committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-

A, 506, 509 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

(A2 to A5), the learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent and the

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. This Court

perused the entire record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that all the allegations made against the petitioners in

the report as well as in the charge sheet are of utter

falsehood. Because 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

did not live for much time with the accused much less

with the petitioners herein and in fact the petitioners 3

and 4 who are A4 and A5 are the residents of Chennai. It

is also contended that the A1 the husband of the

2nd respondent is living in Abudabi and that some

differences might have arisen between them when she

joined him and thereby false case is foisted much less

after filing of the Divorce Petition by 2nd respondent

herein. The petitioners 1 and 2 are old-aged and that

they never harassed 2nd respondent herein and that

petitioners 3 and 4 being residents of Chennai they never

had an opportunity to see 2nd respondent so to harass

her as alleged. Thus, it is contended that none of the

offences is attracted and therefore the petition may be

allowed and the charge sheet proceedings on the file of

the learned trial Court may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent

contended that the allegations made in the report as well

as statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the

witnesses make out prima facie case against the

petitioners. Thus the truth or otherwise of the said

accusations have to be decided during the course of trial

and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor too

concurred with the submissions made for the

2nd respondent.

7. A perusal of report given to police as well as

statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. go to

show some serious allegations against the petitioners

made by the de facto complainant. They are to the extent

that all the accused have prevented her from entering

the matrimonial home and also from leading marital life

with her husband. Even it is alleged that during the

period of her stay for about 40 days with Accused, the A1

along with other accused harassed her both physically

and mentally and it was for additional dowry of

Rs.30,00,000/- and also for 10 sovereigns of gold. It is

also alleged that A1 has taken away her child and

necked her out. A perusal of the said statement of de

facto complainant and the statements of other witnesses

on record go to show that there are serious accusations

against the A1 to A3. Insofar as A4 and A5 who are the

petitioners 3 and 4 herein are concerned, a bald

allegation is made against them that during the 40 days

stay of 2nd respondent herein with the A2 and A3 and

when the A1 also returned from Abudabi, the A4 and A5

who are the residents of Chennai have also threatened

her on the alleged demand for additional dowry.

8. Thus, when the petitioners 3 and 4 (A4 and

A5) being residents of Chennai, coming to the house of

A1 to A3 at Arakkonam and harassing 2nd respondent

without any specific and clear accusation against them,

leads to doubt that they are only roped into the present

case. Further no specific date is given about the alleged

visit of petitioners 3 and 4 to the de facto complainant at

her matrimonial home. The said allegation in the charge-

sheet against the petitioners 3 and 4 would not at all

satisfy the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC.

9. Thus, the averments in the report given to

police as well as the charge sheet filed by the police

against the A4 and A5 who are the petitioners 3 and 4

herein are of omnibus in nature. Absolutely no specific

accusation is made against them. Except a mere

statement by the de facto complainant/2nd respondent

herein that all the accused harassed her and threatened

her for additional dowry, no other material is on record.

Thus, continuation of proceedings against petitioners

No.3 and 4 (A4 and A5) who are the residents of Chennai

and living away from A1 to A3 would be nothing but

abuse of process of law.

10. 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

AIR 1992 SC 604

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 (` 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."

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly

allowed in respect of petitioners 3 and 4. Insofar as the

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is concerned because of disputed

questions of facts are involved and the truth or otherwise

of the allegations has to be decided during the course of

trial, this petition is dismissed against them. However,

considering the submission made by the learned counsel

for the petitioners, the presence of petitioner No.2 is

dispensed with and petitioner No.1 has to represent

petitioner No.2. However, the petitioner No.1 shall

appear before the trial Court whenever the learned

Magistrate specifically directs for her appearance.