Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Shaik Arifa vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 September, 2022

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6165 OF 2021

ORDER:-

     This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.388 of 2020

on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Macherla.

Petitioners herein are arrayed as A.3, A.2, A.4 and A.5 in

the said case.


     2.      A charge sheet has been filed as against the

petitioners and others, for the offences punishable under

Section 498A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961.       The allegations, in brief, may be stated as

follows.

     About four years prior to lodging the report,

marriage of 3rd respondent was performed with A.1 in the

presence of elders of both sides and subsequently they

were blessed with two daughters. At the time of

marriage, A.1 was working as Software Executive in

Hyderabad. Later, A.1 withdrew his job and started

staying at their house without doing any job. A.1

neglected her and her children and started harassment

both mentally and physically. But, she bore with the said

harassment without informing to anybody, keeping

future of her children in mind. A.1 used to pick up

quarrels with her at the instigation of A.2 and A.3. On

one day, she saw A.1 in the room of A.3 and when she

questioned about the same, A.2 to A.7 came there and

picked up quarrel with her by showing their high-handed

behavior. Unable to bear the harassment, she went to

house of her parents in Macherla. Later, A.1 came there

with elders and admitted his fault and brought her back

to matrimonial home. But, he did not change his

attitude thereafter also and continued his harassment

with the instigation of A.2 to A.7 by demanding her to

bring additional dowry and necked her out from the

house saying that unless she fulfils their demands, they

would not allow her into the house. On a report lodged

by 3rd respondent, police registered a case in crime

No.107 of 2020 of Macherla Urban police station and

filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended

that the petitioners are relatives of husband of 3rd

respondent/ defacto complainant and they are residents

of different places; that a perusal of the allegations in the

First Information Report, Section 161 CrPC statements

and the charge sheet, would go to show that an omnibus

accusation has been made against all the petitioners;

that there are no specific accusations made as against

the petitioners with regard to the alleged cruelty, and all

the allegations are attributed against A.1, and hence, he

seeks to quash the impugned proceedings as against the

petitioners.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor contended that there are specific accusations

as against the petitioners, though omnibus in nature,

that they harassed 3rd respondent/defacto complainant,

and that these are all questions of fact that have to be

decided during the course of trial.

5. Though notice was served on 3rd respondent,

there is no representation on her behalf.

6. 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

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

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 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."

7. Perused the record.

8. At the time of marriage with defacto

complainant, A.1 was working as Software Executive at

Hyderabad and they were blessed with two daughters.

Thereafter, A.1 had withdrawn from his job and started

staying in house without doing any job for maintenance

of the family. It is alleged that A.1 neglected defacto

complainant and children and started harassing them

both mentally and physically. It is alleged that A.1, on

the instigation of A.2 and A.3, used to pick up clashes

with defacto complainant and used to harass her. On

one occasion, when defacto complainant saw A.1 in the

room of A.3 and questioned him, A.2 to A.7 came there

and picked up quarrel with her by showing their high-

handed behaviour. Thereafter, defacto complainant left

for her parental house. It is alleged that A.1 went to

parental house of defacto complainant with elders and

brought back her to their house. Even thereafter, A.1

did not change his attitude and continued his activities

by harassing her on the instigation of A.2 to A.7 to bring

additional dowry.

9. A perusal of the recitals in the charge sheet

shows that omnibus accusation has been made as

against the petitioners that they instigated A.1 to

demand additional dowry from 3rd respondent-defacto

complainant. As contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioners, there is absolutely no mention as to, on

which date the said demand was made and when she

was subjected to harassment, and except a vague and

bald allegation that they instigated A.1 to demand

additional dowry, there is absolutely no material to

connect the accused with the crime.

10. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court and

this court categorically held that where the allegations in

the report are vague, sweeping and general, except bald

allegation that the petitioners supported A.1 to subject

the defacto complainant to cruelty, there is absolutely

nothing mentioned as against them and no specific act

has been attributed to any of the accused.

11. Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that number of cases are registered for the

offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and there is

alarming rise in the said offences. In the complaint filed

by the wife, entire family members belonging to the

husband are being roped in only with a view to settle

scores as against the other family.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar

@ Sonam Vs State Of Bihar2, 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 implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

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. In K.Subba Rao & others v. State of

Telangana,3 the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

(paragraphs 5 to 7).

"5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v.

State of U.P. [Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 536]

6. The counsel for the second respondent submitted that certain documents belonging to the second respondent were seized from the appellants which would show their active involvement in the kidnapping of her child. On an overall

3 AIR 2018 SC 4009

consideration of the contents of the charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheet and the submissions made on behalf of Respondent 2, we are of the opinion that a prima facie case has not been made out against the appellants for proceeding against them under Sections 498-A, 120-B, 420 and 365 IPC.

7. For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the proceedings qua the appellants in Crime No. 477 of 2015, dated 20-12-2015 under Sections 498-A, 120-B, 420, 365 IPC registered at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad before the Court of IX, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad, Commissionerate."

14. Most of the complaints under Section 498-A

IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues

without proper deliberations. There is predominant

increase in matrimonial disputes in the recent days. The

provisions of Section 498-A are used as weapons rather

than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to

harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested

under the guise of this provision.

15. On a perusal of the First Information Report,

161 Cr.P.C. statements and the charge-sheet, they go to

show that vague and bald accusations have been made

as against the petitioners. In view of the same,