Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Petta Surya Padmaja vs State Of Ap on 25 January, 2024

                                          1




        THE HON‟BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA


                        CRIMINAL PETITION No.1095 of 2020
ORDER:

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

19731 has been filed, by the petitioner/Accused No.4, seeking quashment of

proceedings against her in C.C.No.952 of 2019 on the file of the Court of V

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, which

was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act3.

2. Petitioner herein is Accused No.4 in the above C.C and she is the sister-

in-law of Respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

a. On 21.08.2016, de facto complainant(wife) got married to Accused

No.1(husband). Accused No.1 and his family members informed that he was

working as Deputy Manager in Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and was

getting Rs.80,000/- as salary and as per the demand of their deamand, the

parents of the de facto complainant agreed to give Rs.5 lakhs as dowry, Rs.1

lakh towards adapaduchu lanchanams and 10 tulas of gold.

b. On 08.08.2016, the parents of the de facto complainant went to the

house of the accused and gave dowry of Rs.5 lakhs in the presence of elders

1 in short „Cr.P.C‟ 2 in short, „I.P.C.‟ 3 in short, „D.P.Act‟

and at the time of marriage Rs.1 lakhs was given to petitioner/Accused No.4

towards adapaduchu lanchanams. After marriage, de facto complainant

joined with Accused No.1 at her matrimonial home at Kakinada. On the

demand of Accused No.1 and his parents, parents of the de facto complainant

gave Rs.1 lakh for customary gifts. Thereafter, de facto complainant and

Accused No.1 went to Bengaluru.

c. After some days, parents of Accused No.1 went to Bengaluru and

started harassing the de facto complainant stating that the dowry amount

was not sufficient and if they perform another marriage to Accused No.1, they

could receive dowry of Rs.25 lakhs. Heeding to the words of his parents,

Accused No.1 used to harass the de facto complainant both physically and

mentally.

d. Unable to bear the same, as de facto complainant informed the same to

her parents, Accused No.1 brought her to her parental home, beat her, abused

her parents, and threatened to see her end and left her there. When elders

tried to settle the dispute, Accused No.1 and his parents abused the de facto

complainant stating that they got a Saturn lady due to which they lost huge

dowry. On that the elders admonished them and sent de facto complainant to

Bengaluru to lead family life.

e. After some days, parents of Accused No.1 visited to Bengaluru and

again started harassing the de facto complainant by attributing illegal

contacts to her. Accused No.1 and his parents tried to kill the de facto

complainant by leaking gas. Accused No.1 and his parents used to harass the

de facto complainant by demanding additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs.

f. On 02.04.2018, Accused No.1 and his parents sent the de facto

complainant to her parental home, though the parents of the de facto

complainant tried to settle the issue through elders, they did not heed their

words.

4. Based on the report submitted by the de facto complainant, a case in

Crime No.111 of 2018 was registered against Accused Nos.,1 to 4 for the

offences under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4

of D.P.Act.

5. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was filed before the

Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahend-

ravaram for the above said offences and the same was numbered as C.C.

No.952 of 2019.

6. This C.C is sought to be quashed by Petitioners/Accused No.4 on the

following grounds.

a. All the allegations are made against the Accused No.1 and his

parents/Accused Nos., 2 and 3. Though there are no specific

allegations or overt acts attributed against Petitioner/Accused No.4,

the learned Magistrate without applying his mind took case on file.

b. The statements of the witnesses are nothing but the replica of the

contents of F.I.R and Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of the de facto

complainant.

c. FIR was lodged and charge sheeted without there being any material

evidence against the Petitioner.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

7. Heard Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.D.

Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the

State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Challagali Gopalaraju, learned counsel for

Respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what was stated in

the Petition, would submit that the petitioner is the married sister-in-law of

the de facto complainant and there are no specific allegations against her. He

would also submit that a casual reference of the name of the petitioner is not

suffice to continue the criminal proceedings against her. Thus, he prays to

quash the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner.

9. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that

there are specific allegations which would attract the alleged offences against

the petitioner, as such, quashing of proceedings at this stage is not tenable.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Similarly, learned counsel for

Respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner played a key role in the

entire dispute and as such, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be

quashed at this stage.

Point for Determination

10. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on

perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that

arises in this case is as follows;

Whether the case against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.952 of

2019 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Rajamahendravaram is liable to be quashed by exercising

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

Determination by the Court

11. This Court while summarizing the position of law concerning

exercise of Section 482 jurisdiction in Konala Bhavani v. State of A.P.,4 held

thus;

"10. Further, Section 482 of Cr. P.C. makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice.

11. Section 482 is are to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting invocation of powers under Section 482 have been strongly emphasized in a catena of decisions, viz., State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal5 at paras 102 and 103, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, at para 57, etc."

12. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings initiated in

matrimonial matters, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court has

4 2023 SCC OnLine AP 3605

delivered numerous decisions. It is relevant to refer to a few, at this juncture.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar,5

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 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"

(emphasis supplied)

13. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex

Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab6, wherein, it was observed 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

5 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 6 AIR 2000 SC 2324

which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real 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)

14. While referring to the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the

then Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Suresh Kumar Jain v.

State of Andhra Pradesh and another7 held thus;

"6. In Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, 2009 (4) JCC 3021, the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the parents-in-law of the respondent were shown as accused for an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 114 of IPC. The Apex Court held that in order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. The Apex Court found that the allegations in the said complaint were vague, as it does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by them in the commission of crime. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court found that continuation of proceedings against the in-laws would be an abuse of process of law.

7. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Apex Court has categorically held that "casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify in taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute". The Apex Court also observed that if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused,

7 (2013) 2 ALD (Cri) 700

especially 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 FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the case against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in "the torture of the complainant". The said view was reiterated by the Apex Court in Chandralekha v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) I CCR 150 (SC).

(emphasis supplied)

15. In the present case, a perusal of the charge sheet as well as

complaint would reveal specific allegations against Accused Nos.1 to 3, who

are the husband and parents-in-law of Respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

It is alleged in the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant that when

the dispute was placed before the elders, Accused Nos.1 to 4 were present and

they all abused her. In Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and

another8, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that mere allegation of abuse without

any specific narration as to the intention to cause alarm, will not amount to

an offence under Section 506 of IPC. However, in the instant case there is

also no single specific allegation as to the intimidation of the

Petitioner/Accused No.4 to the de facto complainant, which would attract the

offence under Section 506 IPC. Except the said omnibus allegation, no

specific overt acts are attributed against the petitioner. Further, the

petitioner is the married sister of Accused No.1 and she has been living

separately with her family.

(2015) 7 SCC 423

16. As can be seen from Bhajanlal‟s case supra, the 1st guideline is to the

effect that even if the complaint allegations are accepted to be true on their

face, if they do not constitute any offence, then the FIR can be quashed. In the

instant case, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/Accused

No.4 to proceed further in this matter. Continuation of proceedings against

the petitioner for mere casual reference of her name in the present case

without her involvement would be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, is

not tenable. In such circumstances, this Court can exercise the inherent

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court

or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In view of the foregoing discussion

and in view of the decisions referred to supra, this Court is of the view that

continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner/Accused No.4 is

undesirable and the same are liable to be quashed.

17. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against

Petitioner/ Accused No.4 in C.C.No.952 of 2019 on the file of the Court of V

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, for the

offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 I.P.C., and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date : 25.01.2024 Dinesh

HON‟BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Dt.25.01.2024

Dinesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

**** CRIMINAL PETITION No.1095 of 2020

Between:

Petta Surya Padmaja, W/o.Tirumala Srinivasa Rao, aged 37 years, R/o.Flat No.A-104, Golden Enclave, Devangapeta, Main Road, Golden Park, Hubli, State of Karnataka.

.... Petitioner And

1. State Of A.P, through S.I. of Police, Women P.S., Rajamahendravaram, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi.

2. Kotnala Bhargavi, W/o.Amarendra Nadh, Hindu, aged 29 years, R/o.D.No.69-12-2/A, Bhaskara Nagar, CTRI, Rajamahendravaram.

3. Kotnala Amarendra Nadh, , S/o.Kali Dasu, Hindu,a ged 35 years, r/o.House NO.124, 2nd Floor, 3rd A- Cross, P.R. Layout, Marathahalli,Behind KMF, Banglore North, Bengaluru, State of Karnataka.

4. Kotnala Ratna Malika, , W/o.Kali Dasu, Hindu, aged 59 years, D.No.3-293, Sai Nagar, State Bank Colon Vakalapudi, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

5. Kotnala Kali Dasu, S/o.Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged 61 years, D.No.3-

293, Sai Nagar, State Bank Colony, Vakalapudi, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

... 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.1095 of 2020

% 25.01.2024

Between:

Petta Surya Padmaja, W/o.Tirumala Srinivasa Rao, aged 37 years, R/o.Flat No.A-104, Golden Enclave, Devangapeta, Main Road, Golden Park, Hubli, State of Karnataka.

.... Petitioner And

1. State Of A.P, through S.I. of Police, Women P.S., Rajamahendravaram, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi.

2. Kotnala Bhargavi, W/o.Amarendra Nadh, Hindu, aged 29 years, R/o.D.No.69-12-2/A, Bhaskara Nagar, CTRI, Rajamahendravaram.

3. Kotnala Amarendra Nadh, , S/o.Kali Dasu, Hindu,a ged 35 years, r/o.House NO.124, 2nd Floor, 3rd A- Cross, P.R. Layout, Marathahalli,Behind KMF, Banglore North, Bengaluru, State of Karnataka.