Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Vuriya Edukondatu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 April, 2024

APHC010098592020
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                         AT AMARAVATI             [3396]
                                  (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                        TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
                        TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                                    PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1321/2020
Between:
Vuriya Edukondatu and Others                     ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
                                      AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and          ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
     1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
     1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
     2. T SREEDHAR

The Court made the following:
ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

19731 has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6, seeking

quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1718 of 2019 on the

file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District

for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code,18602 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,19613.

1 for short 'Cr.P.C'

for short 'IPC'

for short 'D.P.Act'

2. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Accused No.1 and Accused

Nos.4 and 5 are the sister and brother-in-law of Accused No.1 and Accused

No.6 is the cousin of Accused No.1.

3. The contents of the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:

a. Marriage of the complainant took place with Accused No.1 on

15.05.2011. At the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry of Rs.2,25, 000/-

and also presented 15 sovereigns of gold towards. Before marriage, Accused

No.1 worked at Mysore as clinical researcher and after marriage as per the

orders of the company, he was shifted to Visakhapatnam.

b. Then Accused No.1 and the complainant put the family in

Visakhapatnam and led conjugal life and were blessed with a daughter. At that

time, the parents of the complainant got purchased the house hold articles

worth Rs.50,000/-.

c. Later, Accused No.1 left the complainant and her daughter at the house

of his parents and was alone living in Visakhapatnam, when the complainant

was the third month pregnant. Accused Nos.2 to 6 started to demand the

complainant to get additional dowry and gold from her parents and harassed

her daughter both mentally and physically.

d. Complainant narrated entire harassment to her parents. Further

Accused Nos.2 to 6 also demanded the complainant to register the land in the

name of Accused No.1 and sent the complainant to her parents house.

e. Complainant gave birth to another daughter but none came to see her.

When enquired, the parents of the complainant came to know that Accused

No.1 is working as Jail warden in Kadapa. When the father of the complainant

brought the matter to his relatives on 31.03.2017, A1 to A6 will take them after

two months to lead conjugal life. Since then they did not contact them over

phone. Later Accused No.1 contacted the complainant over phone and

abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill.

f. Later the complainant came to know that Accused No.1 developed

illegal contacts with another lady in Kadapa. Basing on the report of the

complainant, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk Police Station

registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2019 under Section 498-A read with 34 of the

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. The Sub Inspector investigated into

the case, filed charge sheet after completion of investigation and Court has

taken cognizance for the said offences.

4. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against them,

Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 filed the present petition on the following

grounds:

a. Respondent No.2 herein alleged baseless allegations with regard to the

harassment by the Petitioners. Admittedly Petitioners are residing in their own

houses and no way concerned with allegations. Hence, harassment by the

Petitioners does not arise.

b. According to the complaint made by Respondent No.2, it seems that the

Petitioners herein alleged to have instigated the husband of Respondent No.2

in indulging all the Acts of violence and all other activities, for which an offence

under the penal law has been booked against the Petitioners herein and

further Respondent No.2 wanted to rope in all the family members by way of

multiplicity of litigations by harassing the Petitioners herein and grossly

misused the provisions of Indian Penal Provision.

c. The initiation of the proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of

process of law and it is nothing but harassment intended to be infected on the

relatives of the husband and they are also no way concerned with the family

affairs of Accused No.1 and to secure the ends of justice, the proceedings are

liable to be quashed.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

5. Heard Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners,

Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

State/Respondent No.1 and Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel for Respondent

No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 would submit

that the marriage between Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 had taken

place on 15.05.2011. The wife left the matrimonial home on 07.09.2013 and

till 2019 no cases have been lodged. Accused No.1 got issued a legal notice

to Respondent No.2 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In reply,

Respondent No.2 made allegations against Accused No.1 that he had illegal

intimacy with another woman and expressed her readiness to join with him,

but did not join with Accused No.1. Thereafter, Accused No.1 filed

H.M.O.P.No.188 of 2019 seeking divorce. After receipt of notice in the divorce

petition, the present case has been lodged with false and untenable

allegations. Learned counsel further submits that except omnibus allegations,

there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to

quash the proceedings against the Petitioners.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor, in one voice, would submit that there are specific

allegations against the Petitioners for the commission of the alleged offence.

The veracity of the said allegations will be revealed during trial. There are no

grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to

dismiss the petition.

Point for Determination

8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both

the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners in C.C.No.1718 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole?

Determination by the Court

9. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kans

Raj v. State Of Punjab4, wherein, it was held as follows:-

"For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in- laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real

4 AIR 2000 SC 2324

culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."

(emphasis supplied)

10. In Shaik Arifa v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, this Court held as

follows:

"11. 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.

12. 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".

(emphasis supplied)

11. In the instant case, it is alleged in the complaint that Accused

No.1 subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty both mentally and

physically by demanding additional dowry. It is further alleged that the

Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 also used to harass her by demanding to get

the land registered in the name of Accused No.1 and also to bring gold from

her parents. They did not even provide basic needs to the Complainant when

she was pregnant. However, the complaint as well as the charge sheet would

reveal that there are no specific overt acts attributed against

Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 6. Petitioner/Accused No.4 being the married

sister of Accused No.1 has been residing with her husband i.e.,

2022 SCC OnLine AP 2162

Petitioner/Accused No.5 and Petitioner/Accused No.6 is the cousin of

Accused No.1 and mere allegation that they supported Accused No.1 in

harassing the de facto complainant would not be sufficient to continue the

prosecution against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 6. Except bald and omnibus

allegations against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 6, no prima facie case is

made out against them.

12. The entire allegations are pertaining to Accused No.1 and his

parents i.e., petitioners 1 and 2/Accused Nos.2 and 3. It is alleged that though

Accused Nos.1 to 3 promised before the elders to take the de facto

complainant to the matrimonial home, they did not do so and has been

postponing the same on one pretext or the other. The contention of the

learned counsel for the Petitioners that there are no specific allegations

against all the Petitioners, is not tenable since there are specific overt acts

attributed against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 and the veracity of the said

allegations has to be decided during the course of trial. When there is a

material to proceed further against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, it is

not a fit case to entertain the quashment against them. However, as

discussed above, since there are no specific allegations against the

Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 6, the proceedings against them can be

quashed.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed by quashing

proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 6 in C.C.No.1718 of 2019

on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam

District for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the Criminal petition

against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, is hereby dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 02.04.2024 JLV Dinesh

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Dt.02.04.2024

JLV Dinesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1321 of 2020 Between:

1. VURIYA EDUKONDATU, S/O PICHAIAH HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, H.NO.7-160/3 JANARDHANREDDY NAGAR, LINGAMGUTLA, NARASARAOPET GUNTUR DISTRICT. AP. 522601

2. VURIYA EDUKONDATU, NO.1(VURIYA PUSHAPAVATHI W/O EDUKONDATU) HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, H.NO.7-160/3 JANARDHANREDDY NAGAR, LINGAMGUTLA, NARASARAOPET GUNTUR DISTRICT. AP. 522601

3. VURIYA EDUKONDATU, W/O DURGA PRASAD D/O PICHAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS H.N0.42-3/1-11, RAMA KRISHNAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT. AP 520001

4. VURIYA EDUKONDATU, S/O RAMA RAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, H.N0.42-3/1-11, RAMA KRISHNAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT. AP 520001

5. VURIYA GOPI KRISHNA, S/O SIVA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS H.NO.2-80, LINGAMGUNTLA, NARASARAOPE GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.522601 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THROUGH ONGOLE TATUKA POLICE STATION ONGOLE, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI.

2. SMT CHEJERLA VISALAKSHRNI, W/O VURIYA ANJAN KUMAR RESIDING UNDER THE CARE OF CH.VENKATESWARLU HINDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, KARAVADI VILLAGE AND MANDAL ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT..

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 02.04.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Her Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

* THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.1321 of 2020 % 02.04.2024 Between: