Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

B Saritha Rajya Lakshmi vs State Of Ap on 25 January, 2024

HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA


                    CRIMINAL PETITION No.443 of 2020
ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.5, seeking

quashment of proceedings against her in Cr.No.3 of 2020, on the file of

Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A & 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.

2. The brief facts which led to the filing of this petition are:

a. The de facto complainant was married to Accused No.1 on

21.08.2008 at Luthergiri Church, Rajahmundry and it was a love

marriage with the consent of elders on both sides. After the marriage, the

de facto complainant joined Accused No.1 at UAE to lead marital life and

during their stay at UAE, Accused No.1 introduced one Srinivas Behara

and his wife who is the Petitioner/Accused No.5 as his colleague.

Thereafter, due to differences between Accused No.1 and the family of

the petitioner, the talks and terms have become limited.

for short „Cr.P.C‟

for short „IPC‟

b. During wed lock, the de facto complainant gave birth to a female

child, due to which her in-laws taunted and Accused No.1 did not support

the de facto complainant on this.

c. Out of necessity, the de facto complainant had taken up a job in

First Gulf Bank, Dubai. At that time, the family of the petitioner again

started friendship with Accused No.1. During second pregnancy,

Accused No.1 left the de facto complainant at her parental home. Since

then Accused No.1 started neglecting the de facto complainant and their

children. During that time, Accused No.1 developed personal and

physical intimacy with the Petitioner and completely neglected the de

facto complainant.

d. Accused No.1 used to visit Visakhapatnam secretly several times

to meet the petitioner. After giving birth to another female child, at the

instigation of the petitioner and the mother of the de facto complainant,

Accused No.1 used to abuse the de facto complainant and subject her to

mental and physical stress.

e. In April, 2017 the petitioner and her family joined the de facto

complainant and stayed in their home stating that they came for summer

vacation and since then, Accused No.1 and the petitioner jointly started

harassing by abusing her. Though the husband of the petitioner asked her

to come to their house in UAE, she refused to do so and stayed in the

house of the de facto complainant. Since then, petitioner used to behave

like the wife of Accused No.1. The de facto complainant was abused by

Accused No.1 and the petitioner.

f. Having come to know about all these incidents, the brother of the

de facto complainant came to Dubai and brought the de facto complainant

and her kids to India.

g. With the support of the petitioner, Accused No.1 completely

neglected the de facto complainant and her children. Hence, Respondent

No.2 lodged a complaint with Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam

which was registered as a case in Crime No.3 of 2020 for the offences

under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC.

4. The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the

Petitioner with the following grounds;

a. The allegations made in the complaint do not make out any case

against the petitioner.

b. The petitioner is no way related to the family of Respondent No.1

nor involved in their affairs and as such, implication of petitioner in

the present case is nothing but abuse of process of law.

c. Except some stray and wild allegations, nothing has been stated in

specific against the petitioner so as to attract the alleged offense.

d. The present complaint is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

motive to wreak vengeance against the petitioner.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

5. Heard Sri S.V.Maruthi Sankar, learned counsel representing Sri

Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.D.Prasanna

Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent

No.1 and Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that allegations

made in the complaint are not true and correct and the same do not make

out any case against the petitioner. He would also submit that the

petitioner hails from a reputed family and is not having any criminal

antecedent and that the present proceedings initiated are nothing but

vexatious.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit

that that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner and thorough investigation is required in this matter to ascertain

the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Hence,

prayed to dismiss the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

conceded to the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for

Respondent No.2.

Point for Determination

8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing

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

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings in Crime No.3 of 2020 against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC?

9. It is pertinent to note that, to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., specific circumstances must be present.

To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some

precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others3 is considered as the

guiding torch in the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and

103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows:

"102. 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

3 AIR 1992 SC 604

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 channelised 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 FIR 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.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect 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; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

(emphasis supplied)

10. A perusal of the contents of the complaint and the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner reveal that the petitioner is

no way related to family of Respondent No.2. This Court in Venkata

Naga Malleswari Anamaripudi v. State of A.P., 4 observed that Section

498-A of I.P.C. is a powerful weapon engrafted by the law, to the rescue

of a married woman, subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or by

the relative of husband. Further, this Court having referred the decision of

2023 SCC OnLine AP 4319

the Hon‟ble Apex Court in U. Suvetha v. State5, interpreted the term

"relative" as appearing in Section 498A of I.P.C. to mean persons related

by blood, marriage or adoption.

11. Moreover, except some stray and wild allegations, nothing has

been stated in specific against the petitioner so as to attract the offences

alleged. Therefore, offence under Section 498-A and 109 IPC cannot be

attributed against the petitioner. In view of the guideline No.1 in

Bhajanlal's case (supra), the allegations made in the FIR or complaint do

not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against

the petitioner. There are valid legal grounds emanating from the record

warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash

the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.5 in the above crime.

Therefore, the continuation of investigation for the aforesaid offences

against petitioner/Accused No.5 would amount to an abuse of process of

the Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that continuation of

criminal proceedings against petitioner/Accused No.5 is undesirable and

the same are liable to be quashed.

12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The criminal

proceedings initiated against the petitioner/Accused No.5 in Crime No.3

(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 36

of 2020 on the file of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam, are hereby

quashed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

___________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date:25.01.2024 Dinesh

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Dated: 25.01.2024.

Dinesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI **** CRIMINAL PETITION No.443 of 2020

Between:

B.Saritha Rajya Lakshmi @ Saritha Behara, W/o.B.Srinivas, Aged 39 years, R/o.50-53-2/3, Flat No.102, Sayis Sri Abhaiya Anjaneya Nilayam, Seethammadhara North Extension, Visakhapatnam P & T Colony, Visakhapatnam Urban. .... Petitioner And

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravathi.

2. Borra Madhurima (Devu), W/o.Borra Syam Praveen, Aged 35 years, R/o.49-53-19/11, B.S.Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 25.01.2024

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.443 of 2020

% 25.01.2024

Between:

B.Saritha Rajya Lakshmi @ Saritha Behara, W/o.B.Srinivas, Aged 39 years, R/o.50-53-2/3, Flat No.102, Sayis Sri Abhaiya Anjaneya Nilayam, Seethammadhara North Extension, Visakhapatnam P & T Colony, Visakhapatnam Urban. .... Petitioner And

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravathi.

2. Borra Madhurima (Devu), W/o.Borra Syam Praveen, Aged 35 years, R/o.49-53-19/11, B.S.Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. ... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Venkat Challa

^ Counsel for Respondents : Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, Assit.Public Prosecutor - R.1 Sri V.Hemanth Kumar - R.2 < Gist: