Raavi Mahalakshmidora, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 712 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Raavi Mahalakshmidora, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 2024

                                       1




 THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

                       CRIMINAL PETITION No.2553 of 2021
ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5,

seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.989 of 2020

on the file of the Court of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 324, 323

and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19613.

2. Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.2 to 5 in the above C.C and

Accused No.1 is the brother of Accused Nos.2 to 5.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

a. Being in love, the de facto complainant Accused No.1 started

living under the same roof like a wife and husband. From the

beginning, Accused Nos.,2 to 5 disliked the association of the de facto

complainant with the Accused No.1 as she did not bring any dowry and

she belongs to a minor community.

b. Out of their relationship, the de facto complainant begot one

1 in short 'Cr.P.C' 2 in short 'I.P.C.' 3 in short 'D.P.Act'

male and one female child. Later, at the instigation of Petitioners/

Accused Nos.2 to 5, Accused No.1 started harassing the de facto

complainant and used to beat her to bring dowry from her parents.

Accused No.1 without providing minimum needs to the de facto

complainant, used to give all of his earnings to Accused Nos.2 to 5. At

the instigation of Accused No.1, petitioners were trying to drive away

the de facto complainant and her children from the house.

c. While so, on 20.01.2019 Accused No.1 came in a drunken state,

shouted on the de facto complainant stating that he has no relation

with her children and tried to kill her by pressing her neck.

d. On 18.04.2020 at about 5.30 p.m., while the de facto complainant

along with her children was going on her way, Accused No.1 who was

sitting in Anjaneyaswamy temple along with others, thought that she

was abusing him, picked up a stick and beat her on her head due to

which, she received bleeding injury on the right side of her head. When

the children of the de facto complainant went to the house of Accused

Nos.2 to 5 to question as to why Accused No.1 beat their mother,

Accused Nos.3 to 5 abused them in filthy language and warned them to

kill if they come to their house once again.

e. On 21.04.2020 the de facto complainant went to Women Police

Station, Anakapalli and presented a complaint against the accused and

on that Police called Accused No.1 for counseling and he said that they

would settle the matter in the presence of village elders, but they did

not turn up. As such, the de facto complainant on 13.10.2020 presented

a complaint before DISHA Women Police Station, Anakapalli, based on

which a case in Crime No.27 of 2020 for the offences under Sections

498-A, 324, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act.

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

Court of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli for the above said

offences and the same was numbered as C.C.No.989 of 2020. This C.C

is sought to be quashed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 on the

following grounds.

a. The entire allegations are against Accused No.1 only but not against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5.

b. The statements of the witnesses would clearly show that there is no marital relationship between the de facto complainant and Accused No.1, as such the allegation of dowry harassment does not arise.

c. The de facto complainant married one Kuravada Devudu about 35 years ago and without getting separated from him legally, she started living with Accused No.1.

d. The live-in relationship between Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant spoilt the lives of Accused Nos.3 to 5 as they were mentally and physically harassed.

e. The de facto complainant has been harassing Accused No.1 to transfer the entire property in the names of her son and daughter for living luxurious life.

f. The present complaint has been filed by the de facto complainant with a fraudulent intention to harass the accused and to grab money from them.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

5. Heard Sri P.Sree Ramulu Naidu, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Ms.D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1. In spite of

providing sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/

de facto complainant did not submit their arguments.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no

marital relationship between Accused No.1 and the de facto

complainant, as such, subjecting the de facto complainant to cruelty by

the petitioners does not arise. The present case has been filed only

based on bald and omnibus allegations. He would also submit that the

Petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offences and a casual

reference of the names of the petitioners is not sufficient to continue

the criminal proceedings against them.

7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit

that there are specific allegations which would attract the alleged

offences against the petitioners, as such, quashing of proceedings at

this stage is not tenable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Point for Determinations

8. 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 in

C.C.No.989 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Metropolitan

Magistrate, Anakapalli is liable to be quashed by exercising

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

Determination by the Court

9. A bare perusal of Section 482 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. A court while sitting

in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a

court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial

justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 the invocation of the

provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others4 is

considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. 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 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.

AIR 1992 SC 604

(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. In Suresh Kumar Jain v. State of Andhra Pradesh and

another5 the then Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as

follows:

"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, 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

11. Admittedly, the Respondent No.2/de facto complainant has

been in live-in relationship with Accused No.1 and since the beginning,

petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 have been displeased with their

relationship. As there was no marital relation between the de facto

complainant and Accused No.1, the ingredients for the offence under

5 (2013) 2 ALD (Cri) 700

Section 498-A IPC do not attract. Except a bald allegation that

Accused No.1 at the instigation of the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5

harassed the de facto complainant by demanding dowry, there is no

iota of pleading to support the same. The offences under Sections 324

and 324 IPC do not attract against the petitioners, since it is the

Accused No.1, who is alleged to have beat the de facto complainant,

but not the petitioners herein. Further, since there is no marriage

between Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant, and as the

petitioners have not relished the live-in relationship, the question of

demand of dowry by them does not arise. Moreover, no specific overt

acts are attributed against the petitioners.

12. 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. As there is no prima facie case made out against the

petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5, continuation of proceedings against the

petitioners 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 the criminal

proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 are liable to be

quashed.

13. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings

against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.989 of 2020 on the

file of the Court of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli, for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 324, 323 and 506 read with

34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 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.2553 of 2021

Between:

1. Raavi Mahalakshmidora, S/o.late Suryanarayanadora, aged about 50 years, R/o.Makavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Raavi Mahalakshmamma, D/o.Late Suryanarayanadora, aged about 52 years, R/o.Makavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

3. Raavi Nagamani, D/o.Late Suryanarayanadora, Aged about 35 years, R/o.Makavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

4. Raavi Suryakantham, D/o.Late Suryanarayanadora, Aged about 32 years, R/o.Makavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

.... Petitioners And

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

2. Raavi Mangamma, W/o.Narayanadora, aged about 46 years, R/o.Makavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. ... 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.2553 of 2021

% 25.01.2024

Between:

1. Raavi Mahalakshmidora, S/o.late Suryanarayanadora, aged about 50 years, R/o.Makavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Raavi Mahalakshmamma, D/o.Late Suryanarayanadora, aged about 52 years, R/o.Makavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

3. Raavi Nagamani, D/o.Late Suryanarayanadora, Aged about 35 years, R/o.Makavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

4. Raavi Suryakantham, D/o.Late Suryanarayanadora, Aged about 32 years, R/o.Makavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

.... Petitioners And

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

2. Raavi Mangamma, W/o.Narayanadora, aged about 46 years, R/o.Makavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri P.Sree Ramulu Naidu

^ Counsel for Respondents : Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor - R.1

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1992 SC 604

2. (2013) 2 ALD (Cri) 700 This Court made the following: