Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Thirumunadham Srinubabu vs The State Of A.P on 24 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13582 OF 2018
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to
C.C.No.45 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of
1st class, Kakinada and to quash the same.
2. On the report lodged by the 2nd respondent/De-facto Complainant
against the accused, the Police has investigated the case and laid a
charge sheet before the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st
class, Kakinada, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),
506 R/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in
C.R.No.49 of 2017 of Mahila Police Station, Kakinada. In the charge
sheet there is a letter that the petitioners have given assurance to the
parents before the elders that the petitioners will take back the 2nd
respondent/De-facto Complainant to in-laws house. Later they
demanded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents despite
assurance given by the elders. They expressed inability to pay the
additional amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the in-laws given all sorts of
torture and they tried to squeeze her neck. Later the 2nd respondent/De-
facto Complainant left the matrimonial house with her child due to fear
of them and went to her parent's house. The charge sheet was
registered as C.C.No.45 of 2018 and the said CC was assailed before
this Court on the grounds that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents
of A1/petitioner No.1 and they are aged and the petitioner No.4 is
arrayed as accused No.4 he is employed and married stayed away
along with his family and they are unnecessarily roped in the present
case and also contended that there is no specific allegation against
petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein. Therefore, the learned counsel for the
petitioners urged this Court to quash the charge sheet against the
petitioners herein.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant
submitted that there are specific allegations in the charge sheet. They
demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- despite undertaken given
by the elders and there is a demand of dowry by the petitioners.
Therefore, he would prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
4. Heard, Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant.
The point for consideration is that whether the Criminal Petition can be
quashed against the petitioners herein. The Supreme Court had refused
to quash the FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A
IPC and observing that when there is no specific role in support of the
general allegations made against accused ascertained the role played
by each accused in pursuance of the offence would be allowed to quash
the proceedings and if the same is un-checked it result in mis-use of the
process of law. The Supreme Court reported in Kahkashan Kausar
alias Sonam v. State of Bihar1 referring the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Geeta Mehrota & another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
another2 and K.Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana3 as follows:
"In so far as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is
concerned, it is no doubt true that the High Court was correct to
the extent that the question of territorial jurisdiction could be
decided by the trial court itself. But this ground was just one of
the grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the
appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein it was also
alleged that no prima facie case was made out against the
(2022) 6 SCC 599
(2012) 10 SCC 741
(2018 ) 14 SCC 452
appellants for initiating the proceedings under the Dowry
Prohibition Act and other provisions of the IPC. The High Court
has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in so far as the
consideration of the case of the appellants are concerned, who
are only brother and sister of the complainant's husband and
are not alleged even by the complainant to have demanded
dowry from her. The High Court, therefore, ought to have
considered that even if the trial court at Allahabad had the
jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to
whether the trial against the brother and sister of the husband
was fit to be continued and whether that would amount to abuse
of the process of the court".
5. In the present case, there are no specific allegations against the
in-laws of the respondent. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the
proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court referred supra as there are no specific
allegations against the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 4. Accordingly, the
Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in
C.C.No.45 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of
1st class, Kakinada against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 24.06.2024
SNI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13582 OF 2018
Date: 24.06-2024
SNI
