Magistrate Of First Class For ... vs Ch.Bhajanlal And Ors.4
2023 Latest Caselaw 3814 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

   CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7544 of 2022, 1323 of
       2023, 1326 of 2023 and 2492 of 2023

COMMON ORDER :

     These Criminal Petitions, under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are filed by various

accused in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise,

Guntur, seeking to quash the said proceedings as

against them.    Petitioners in Criminal Petition No.7544

of 2022 are A.4 and A.6; the petitioner in Criminal

Petition No.1323 of 2023 is A.5; petitioners in Criminal

Petition No.1326 of 2023 are A.2 and A.3 and the

petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2492 of 2023 is A.1, in

the aforesaid P.R.C.


     2.    On the strength of a report lodged by 2nd

respondent, who is father of victim girl B.Jaswanthi, a

case in crime No. 605 of 2021 of Pattabhipuram police

station was registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 307, 506, 420 IPC and 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and after completion of

investigation, police laid charge sheet against A.1 to A.6

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307,

506, 420, 406 read with 34 IPC and 3, 4 and 6 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations in the

charge sheet, in brief, are as follows.

Marriage of A.1 was performed with the victim

B.Jaswanthi in the presence of elders on 25.02.2015.

Her parents gave 1.12 Kgs of gold jewellery, 4 Kg silver,

500 square yards of land worth Rs.2.50 crores towards

pasupu-kumkum and gave an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs

to A.1 towards dowry, as demanded by A.1 to A.6. At

the time of marriage, the victim requested A.1 to A.5 for

continuing her further studies and the latter accepted it.

After the marriage, she joined A.1 to lead conjugal life at

Vitamurajupalli village, Vinukonda mandal, Guntur

district. Her parents allowed her to take her gold

ornaments to U.S.A., but she informed them that A.2 to

A.5 did not accept to take the gold ornaments to U.S.A.

and hence she left her gold ornaments with A.2, A.3 and

A.5 and went to U.S.A. It is alleged that since then, A.2

to A.5 used to abuse her with the support of A.1. A.1

warned her to do as per the wishes of A.4 and A.5. Soon

after she got her H4 Visa, A.1 took her to U.S.A. Later,

in the year 2017, her parents went to U.S.A. and stayed

there for three months in the house of A.1 and their

daughter. A.1, A.4 to A.6 increased harassment towards

her without any reasons. The same was informed to her

parents (L.Ws.1 and 7) and brother (L.W.8), for which her

parents informed her that such type of things are

common in conjugal life and advised her to adjust with

A.1, A.4 to A.6.

Prior to marriage, A.1 to A.6 alleged to have

accepted her for continuing her further studies in U.S.A.

When they reached U.S.A., A.1 did not accept her

request to continue her further studies. At a later point

of time, A.1 accepted her to join in Oklahoma University

to study M.S. (Master) course, but he did not pay the

University fee and hence she joined a part time job to per

her fee. Because of her joining in Oklahoma University,

A.1 stopped his job and joined in Dallas (TX) for job to

harass her and also changed their residence, and at that

time, A.1 stayed in the house of A.4. In the year 2017,

she completed her M.S. and informed her brother (L.W.8)

that she joined in a job. A.1 came to Dallas and imposed

a condition that she should live near house of A.4. A.4

used to harass her both mentally and physically and A.1

used to harass her at the instigation of A.4. The same

was informed by her to her parents (L.Ws.1 and 7) and

brother (L.W.8). Since the date of marriage, she did not

lead her conjugal life happily with A.1. She informed

her brother (L.W.8) that it is very hard to stay at Dallas

due to unbearable harassment of A.1 and the

harassment, both physically and mentally, over phone by

A.4 and A.5.

In September, 2019, A.2 made a phone call and

informed that he fell ill and requested A.1 and the victim

to come to India immediately. At that time, she got an

offer for a permanent job, however, she came to India

along with A.1 and stayed in Lakshmi Apartments,

Vijayawada, where A.1 picked up a quarrel with her and

beat her. On 17.11.2019, A.1 picked up a quarrel with

her on the pretext that some others were ready to give

Rs.2.00 crores towards dowry and marry him and

attempted to kill her by throttling with chunni and tied

to her neck. But, she could not inform the same either

to her parents or brother. Later, A.1 took her passport

and left her at her parents and planned to leave India for

USA. On negotiations, A.1 accepted to take her to U.S.A.

Since her passport was not renewed and Visa was also

expired, in the month of January, 2020, her brother

(L.W.8) arranged Visa to her to go to USA, and she went

to U.S.A. But, at that time, A.1 harassed her by not

allowing her into house. A.1 demanded her to bring

additional dowry otherwise threatened to kill her.

During that time, her parents gave an amount of

Rs.25.00 lakhs to A.1. A.1 to A.3 forcibly took her

mobile phone password and got transferred an amount

of USD 80,000 to his account from her savings.

Thereafter, she became pregnant and when A.1 to A.6

came to know that she would give birth to a girl child,

A.1 decided to leave for USA with her passport and other

documents, as they did not like her to give birth to a girl

child, all the accused harassed her both physically and

mentally without giving food and confining her in a

room. She gave birth to a girl child on 07.10.2021. But,

A.1 or his relatives did not pay hospital bills and 2nd

respondent paid the same. A.1 to A.6 tried to take

additional dowry by blackmailing her parents.

3. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior

counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the

petitioners; Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel

appearing for the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and

Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners submitted that omnibus accusations have

been made as against all the accused and no specific

overt-act has been attributed to any of the accused; that

the alleged accusations that have been made as against

the petitioners herein are said to have occurred in

U.S.A.; that a complaint has been filed without there

being any jurisdiction to try the offences. Learned senior

counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no

mention of date or time as to when the said incident is

said to have taken place, and the present complaint has

been filed only with a view to harass the petitioners when

a perusal of the statements of witnesses or allegations in

the charge sheet do not disclose any acts of harassment

said to have been committed by the petitioners in India.

He further submits that in view of the above,

continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing

abuse of process of Court and prays to quash the same.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for 2nd

respondent contended that the present quash petitions

are not maintainable for the reason that earlier the

petitioners herein filed a quash petition and the same

was dismissed on merits by this Court, and thereafter,

once again, the present quash petitions are filed to

quash the self-same proceedings as against the

petitioners herein, and the second quash petition is not

maintainable on the very same grounds.

Learned senior counsel further submitted that on a

perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet would go to

show that there are specific accusations that have been

made as against the petitioners herein; that the

petitioners herein demanded an amount of Rs.25.00

lakhs to be paid to A.1. It is further submitted by the

learned senior counsel that the other accused are alleged

to have harassed the victim with the support of A.1, and

since specific allegations are made as against the

petitioners herein and as the contentions raised by the

learned senior counsel for appearing for petitioners are

disputed questions of fact, the learned senior counsel

prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.

6. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent supported

the submissions made by the learned senior counsel

appearing for 2nd respondent. According to him, specific

accusations have been made as against the petitioners

herein, and truth or otherwise of the said accusations

has to be decided during the course of trial. He relied

on a decision in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab & others1.

7. In reply, the learned senior counsel Sri

K.Chidambaram submitted that he was not aware of the

fact that earlier a petition was filed to quash the

proceedings in crime No. 605 of 2021 of Pattabhipuram

police station. He submits that entire investigation is

over and police filed charge sheet in the said crime.

According to him, there is change in circumstances as

the police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

He submits that second quash petition is maintainable

and relied on a decision in Superintendent and

Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan

Singh and others2.

1 (2020) 3 SCC 317 2 MANU/SC/0223/1974 = (1975) 3 SCC 706

A perusal of the said judgment goes to show that

the main question that was debated was whether the

High Court has jurisdiction to make order dated

07.04.1970, quashing the proceedings against

respondents 1, 2 and 3, when on an earlier application

made by 1st respondent, the High Court had, by its Order

dated 12.12.1968, refused to quash the proceeding. The

Hon'ble Apex Court held that the earlier application,

which was rejected by the High Court, is an application

under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code,

1898 to quash the proceedings and the High Court

rejected it on the ground that evidence had let in and it

was not desirable to interfere with the proceedings at

that stage. Thereafter, the criminal case was dragged on

for a period of 1 ½ years without there being any

progress at all and it was in those circumstances, the

respondents were constrained to file an application

under Section 561A CrPC, 1898 to quash the

proceedings. In the said decision, it is held as under:

"It is difficult to see as to how in these circumstances, it could ever be contended that what the High Court was being asked to do by making the subsequent application was to review or revise the Order made by it on the earlier application. Section 561A preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such Orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must, therefore, exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The High Court was in the circumstances entitled to entertain the subsequent application of Respondents Nos.1 and 2 and consider whether on the facts and circumstances then obtaining, the continuance of the proceeding against the respondents constituted an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice."

The learned senior counsel relied on a decision in

Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)

and others3, wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 7)

"7. The complaint filed by Respondent 2 alleges issuance of the cheques by the appellant as Director

3 MANU/SC/1000/2019 = AIR 2019 SC 3583

on 15-2-2001 and 28-2-2001. The appellant in his reply dated 31-8-2001, to the statutory notice, had denied answerability in view of his resignation on 20-1-2001. This fact does not find mention in the complaint. There is no allegation in the complaint that the cheques were post-dated. Even otherwise, the appellant had taken a specific objection in his earlier application under Section 482 CrPC that he had resigned from the Company on 20-1-2001 and which had been accepted. From the tenor of the order of the High Court on the earlier occasion it does not appear that Form 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies was brought on record in support of the resignation. The High Court dismissed the quashing application without considering the contention of the appellant that he had resigned from the post of the Director of the Company prior to the issuance of the cheques and the effect thereof in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court in the fresh application under Section 482 CrPC initially was therefore satisfied to issue notice in the matter after noticing the Form 32 certificate. Naturally there was a difference between the earlier application and the subsequent one, inasmuch as the statutory Form 32 did not fall for consideration by the Court earlier. The factum of resignation is not in dispute between the parties. The subsequent application, strictly

speaking, therefore cannot be said to a repeat application squarely on the same facts and circumstances."

8. This Court perused the aforesaid orders and

comes to a conclusion that the petitioners herein filed a

quash petition at the earliest point of time i.e. at the

stage of F.I.R. At that stage, it cannot be inferred that

the material available on record would be sufficient

enough to entertain an application under Section 482

CrPC. It is pertinent to mention here that registration of

F.I.R. is only to set the criminal law into motion. Once a

complaint for a cognizable offence has been filed, it is

obligatory on the part of the police to register a case and

send the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24

hours. At that stage, a petition filed under Section 482

CrPC would be too premature to deal with the accusation

that contained in the report. In the case on hand, police

conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. The

entire material has been furnished to the petitioners and

accordingly the same has been placed before this Court.

There is a change in the circumstances and therefore it

cannot be said to be a repeat application squarely on the

same facts and circumstances of the case. It is quite

evident that some new material has been placed for

quashing the proceedings. In view of the same, this

Court holds that in the present facts and circumstances

of the case, second quash petition is maintainable.

9. Now, this Court intends to proceed to examine

the factual aspects of the case. A.1 is husband of victim

(L.W.6). A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1. A.4 is younger

sister, A.5 is elder sister and A.6 is brother-in-law, of

A.1. Marriage of A.1 was performed with the victim

B.Jaswanthi as per Hindu traditions in the presence of

elders on 25.02.2015. It is alleged that her parents gave

1.12 Kgs of gold jewellery, 4 Kg silver, 500 square yards

of land worth Rs.2.50 crores towards pasupu-kumkum

and gave an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs to A.1 towards

dowry, as demanded by A.1 to A.6. At the time of

marriage, the victim requested A.1 to A.5 for continuing

her further studies and the latter accepted it. After the

marriage, she joined A.1 to lead conjugal life at

Vitamurajupalli village, Vinukonda mandal, Guntur

district. Her parents allowed her to take her gold

ornaments to U.S.A., but she informed them that A.2 to

A.5 did not accept to take the gold ornaments to U.S.A.

and hence she left her gold ornaments with A.2, A.3 and

A.5 and went to U.S.A. It is alleged that since then, A.2

to A.5 used to abuse her with the support of A.1. A.1

warned her to do as per the wishes of A.4 and A.5. Soon

after she got her H4 Visa, A.1 took her to U.S.A. Later,

in the year 2017, her parents went to U.S.A. and stayed

there for three months in the house of A.1 and their

daughter.

A.1, A.4 to A.6 increased harassment towards her

without any reasons. The same was informed to her

parents (L.Ws.1 and 7) and brother (L.W.8), for which her

parents informed her that such type of things are

common in conjugal life and advised her to adjust with

A.1, A.4 to A.6.

Prior to marriage, A.1 to A.6 alleged to have

accepted her for continuing her further studies in U.S.A.

When they reached U.S.A., A.1 did not accept her

request to continue her further studies. At a later point

of time, A.1 accepted her to join in Oklahoma University

to study M.S. (Master) course, but he did not pay the

University fee and hence she joined a part time job to per

her fee. It is alleged that because of her joining in

Oklahoma University, A.1 stopped his job and joined in

Dallas (TX) for job to harass her and also changed their

residence, and at that time, A.1 stayed in the house of

A.4. In the year 2017, she completed her M.S. and

informed her brother (L.W.8) that she joined in a job.

A.1 came to Dallas and imposed a condition that she

should live near house of A.4. A.4 used to harass her

both mentally and physically and A.1 used to harass her

at the instigation of A.4. The same was informed by her

to her parents (L.Ws.1 and 7) and brother (L.W.8). It is

further alleged that since the date of marriage, she did

not lead her conjugal life happily with A.1. She

informed her brother (L.W.8) that it is very hard to stay

at Dallas due to unbearable harassment of A.1 and the

harassment, both physically and mentally, over phone by

A.4 and A.5.

It is further alleged that in September, 2019, A.2

made a phone call and informed that he fell ill and

requested A.1 and the victim to come to India

immediately. At that time, she got an offer for a

permanent job, however, she came to India along with

A.1 and stayed in Lakshmi Apartments, Vijayawada,

where A.1 picked up a quarrel with her and beat her. It

is further alleged that on 17.11.2019, A.1 picked up a

quarrel with her on the pretext that some others were

ready to give Rs.2.00 crores towards dowry and marry

him and attempted to kill her by throttling with chunni

and tied to her neck. But, she could not inform the

same either to her parents or brother. Later, A.1 took

her passport and left her at her parents and planned to

leave India for USA. On negotiations, A.1 accepted to

take her to U.S.A. Since her passport was not renewed

and Visa was also expired, in the month of January,

2020, her brother (L.W.8) arranged Visa to her to go to

USA, and she went to U.S.A. But, at that time, A.1

harassed her by not allowing her into house. It is

further alleged that A.1 demanded her to bring additional

dowry otherwise threatened to kill her. During that time,

her parents gave an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs to A.1. It

is further alleged that A.1 to A.3 forcibly took her mobile

phone password and got transferred an amount of USD

80,000 to his account from her savings. Thereafter, she

became pregnant and when A.1 to A.6 came to know that

she would give birth to a girl child, A.1 decided to leave

for USA with her passport and other documents, as they

did not like her to give birth to a girl child, all the

accused harassed her both physically and mentally

without giving food and confining her in a room. She

gave birth to a girl child on 07.10.2021. But, A.1 or his

relatives did not pay hospital bills and 2nd respondent

paid the same. A.1 to A.6 tried to take additional dowry

by blackmailing her parents. Hence, the report.

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.4,

wherein the Apex Court held thus:

"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

4 AIR 1992 SC 604

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."

11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners relied on a decision in Preeti Gupta and

another v. State of Jharkhand & another5, wherein it is

held thus: (paragraphs 30 to 34).

"30. 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.

5 (2010) 7 SCC 667

31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under:

"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to

help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations."

The learned senior counsel also relied on a decision

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and

another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,6 wherein it

is held thus: (paragraphs 11 and 12).

"11. The appellants are brother-in-law and mother-

inlaw respectively of the deceased. A perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which a crime was registered, does not indicate any specific allegations by disclosing the involvement of the appellants. It is the specific case of the 1st appellant that he was working as a cashier in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, which is at about 40 kms from Gorakhpur. The alleged incident was on 24.07.2018 at about 8 p.m. When the investigation was pending, the 1st appellant has filed affidavit before Senior Superintendent of Police on 08.08.2018, giving his employment details and stated that he was falsely implicated. It was his specific case that during the relevant time, he was working at ICICI Bank, Khalilabad branch, Gorakhpur and his mother was also staying with him. The Branch Manager has endorsed his presence in the branch, showing in-time

62021 SCC OnLine SC 1251

at 09 : 49 a.m. and out-time at 06 : 25 p.m. Even in the statement of 2nd respondent recorded by the police and also in the final report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., except omnibus and vague allegations, there is no specific allegation against the appellants to show their involvement for the offences alleged. This Court, time and again, has noticed making the family members of husband as accused by making casual reference to them in matrimonial disputes. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, in support of her case, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh1. In the aforesaid case, this Court in identical circumstances, has quashed the proceedings by observing that family members of husband were shown as accused by making casual reference to them. In the very same judgment, it is held that a large number of family members are shown in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and the contents do not disclose their active involvement, as such, taking cognizance of the matter against them was not justified. It is further held that taking cognizance in such type of cases results in abuse of judicial process. Paras 18 and 25 of the said judgment, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, read as under:

"18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-

in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was

undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.

25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law.

Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at

the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."

12. From a perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent and the final report filed by the police under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., We are of the view that the aforesaid judgment fully supports the case of the appellants. Even in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, it is not disputed that the 1st appellant was working in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, but merely stated that there was a possibility to reach Gorakhpur by 8 p.m. Though there is an allegation of causing injuries, there are no other external injuries noticed in the postmortem certificate, except the single ante-mortem injury i.e. ligature mark around the neck, and the cause of death is shown as asphyxia. Having regard to the case of the appellants and the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that except vague and bald allegations against the appellants, there are no specific allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute them for the offences alleged. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra1, which squarely applies to the case of the appellants, we are of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings."

The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on

a decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State Of

Bihar7, 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

7 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

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.

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. In the case on hand, a perusal of the material

on record would go to show that all the accusations that

have been made are against A.1, A.2 and A.3 to the

extent that they forcibly had taken away mobile phone

password of the victim (L.W.6) and got transferred USD

80,000 to the account of A.1 from her savings account.

A specific act has been attributed as against A.4, who is

younger sister of A.1, that she harassed the victim

(L.W.6) both physically and mentally when she was

residing near to house of A.4. It is further alleged that

A.1 harassed her at the instigation of A.4 and the same

has been informed by her to her parents (L.Ws.1 and 7)

and brother (L.W.8). All the accusations that have been

made, as per the charge sheet, are alleged to have taken

place in USA, where A.1, the victim (L.W.6), A.4 and A.6

were residing. All the allegations that are mentioned in

the charge sheet are directed as against A.1 that he

harassed her. Though no date or time has been

mentioned in the charge sheet, since specific accusations

have been made as against A.1, his parents A.2 and A.3

and A.4, who happens to be sister of A.1, this Court is

not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings

insofar as A.1 to A.4 are concerned.

13. Insofar as A.5, who is elder sister of A.1, is

concerned, she is residing in India. Nowhere in the

charge sheet it is stated that she joined family of A.1 and

the victim (L.W.6) at any point of time. Except stating

that all the accused i.e. A.1 to A.6, harassed the victim,

there is no specific date or time that has been mentioned

in the charge sheet as against her. A vague and bald

allegation has been made to the extent that all the

accused harassed the victim.

14. On the contrary, it has been specifically

alleged that harassment is said to have taken place in

U.S.A. except on one solitary instance that is said to

have taken place at Vijayawada. In respect of the

alleged solitary incident that is said to have taken place

at Vijayawada, the allegation is against A.1, who alleged

to have throttled the victim (L.W.6) with chunni and tied

to her neck. The said incident is said to have taken

place in the year 2019. Quite surprisingly, there is no

complaint whatsoever as against the petitioners herein in

respect of the said incident. But, in respect of A.5,

except making a bald accusation that all the accused

harassed, there is absolutely no specific accusation

made as against her.

15. Insofar as A.6 is concerned, he is brother-in-

law of A.1. Except an omnibus accusation that all the

accused harassed the victim, there is no material

specifically as against A.6. Time and again, the Hon'ble

Apex Court and this court categorically held that a

tendency has been developed for roping in all the

relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in

order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of

the husband. No specific instances have been

mentioned in the charge sheet against A.5 and A.6. All

the accusations that are made against them are either

vague or general in nature. The allegations, if any, in the

charge sheet as against A.5 and A.6 would not come

within the definition of 'cruelty' as defined under Section

498A IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that

continuation of the impugned proceedings as against A.5

and A.6 is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, Criminal

Petition Nos. 1323 of 2023 is allowed, quashing the

proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and

Excise, Guntur insofar as petitioner/A.5 is concerned.

Criminal Petition No.7544 of 2022 is partly allowed,

quashing the proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022 on the

file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for

Prohibition and Excise, Guntur insofar as petitioner/A.6

is concerned, and insofar as petitioner/A.4 is concerned,

the said Criminal Petition is dismissed.

The other Criminal Petition Nos. 1326 of 2023 and

2492 of 2023, are dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the

Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 08.08.2023 DRK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

COMMON ORDER IN CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7544 of 2022, 1323 of 2023, 1326 of 2023 and 2492 of 2023

8.8.2023 DRK