Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

John Srampikal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 June, 2024

APHC010109662020
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                    [3396]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE
                        TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                                    PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1417/2020
Between:
John Srampikal and Others                       ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
                               AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
    1. P V N KIRAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
    1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
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.6 and 7,

seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.49 of 2018 on

the file of the Court of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, registered

for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal

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

for short „Cr.P.C‟

for short „IPC‟

for short „D.P.Act‟

2. The brief case, as per the charge sheet, is as follows:

a. Marriage of the Respondent No.2/Complainant with the Accused

No.1 was performed and at the time of marriage, parents of Complainant

gave Rs.1,00,000/- to Accused No.1 and got opened a Cell Point Shop by

Accused No.1 and due to poor maintenance, the said shop was closed.

Thereafter, Accused No.1, at the instigation of Accused Nos.2 and 3,

started harassing the Complainant by demanding additional dowry.

b. As such, the Complainant filed a case vide C.C.No.457 of 2009

against Accused Nos.1 to 3 at Old Guntur Police Station and the same

was compromised between the parties in Lok Adalat on 02.02.2010

before this Court with a direction to Accused No.1 to look after the welfare

of the Complainant. But, the Accused No.1 continued his harassment

towards the Complainant, at the instigation of Accused Nos.2 to 7.

c. Accused No.1 left the complainant when they were residing at

Chilakaluripet and went away to Kerala and having no other go, the

Complainant has been residing along with her parents. When the

Complainant contacted Accused Nos.2 to 7 and asked the whereabouts

of Accused No.1, they abused her in filthy language and also threatened

with dire consequences. Hence, the Complainant lodged, the present

complaint, vide Cr.No.211 of 2013 for the offences under Section 498-A

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Police after due investigation, filed

charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the above said offences,

which was numbered as C.C.No.49 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VI

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Grounds sought for quashment:

3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the present petition

is filed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 to quash the proceedings

against them in the above C.C on the following grounds:

a. Petitioners were implicated in the present case without there being

any reason and though the Petitioners are not at all the relatives of

Accused No.1.

b. No offence is made out against the Petitioners.

c. Since the Petitioners are not the blood relatives of Accused No.1,

the offences under Section 498-A IPC does not attract against them.

d. There are no specific allegations against the Petitioners.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri P.V.N.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners

and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

State/Respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for

Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the

Petitioners are Accused Nos.6 and 7, who are the owners of the house

where the Complainant and Accused No.1 resided for some time and that

the Petitioners are not the relatives of Accused No.1. It is submitted

further that the Petitioners are Christians, whereas, Accused No.1 is a

Muslim and since the Petitioners interfered to resolve the disputes

between the couple, the present case has been lodged by implicating the

Petitioners. It is concluded that the continuation of the criminal

proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 is an abuse of

process of law.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no

grounds to interfere and would submit that as per the charge sheet,

Petitioners are the relatives of Accused No.1, whereas, in the complaint,

Respondent No.2 never stated that the Petitioners are the relatives of

Accused No.1.

Point for Determination

7. 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 against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.6 and 7 in C.C.No.49 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur?

Determination by the Court

8. 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 trial court, 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.

9. 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. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in U.

Suvetha v. State4, interpreted the term "relative" as appearing in Section

498A of I.P.C., in the following terms:

"9. The word "cruelty" having been defined in terms of the aforesaid Explanation, no other meaning can be attributed thereto. Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion, would not attract the wrath of Section 498- A of the Penal Code. An offence in terms of the said provision is committed by the persons specified therein. They have to be the "husband" or his "relative". Either the husband of the woman or his relative must have subjected her to cruelty within the aforementioned provision. If the appellant had not (sic) been instigating the husband of the first informant to torture her, as has been noticed by the High Court, the husband would be committing some offence punishable under the other provisions of the Penal Code and the appellant may be held guilty for abetment of commission of such an offence but not an offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code.

10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term "relative" must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or

(2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 36

granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word "relative" would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption.

*****

13. Furthermore, Section 498-A is a penal one. It, thus, deserves strict construction. Ordinarily, save and except where a contextual meaning is required to be given to a statute, a penal provision is required to be construed strictly. This Court in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [(2007) 7 SCC 162 : (2007) 8 Scale 354] held as under:

(SCC p. 168, para 17) "17. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the more stringent is the law, more strict construction thereof would be necessary. Even when the burden is required to be discharged by an assessee, it would not be as heavy as on the prosecution. (See P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala [1995 Supp (2) SCC 187 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 466] .)"

(Emphasis supplied)

10. This Court in has reiterated the view expressed in U. Suvetha

(referred supra) that persons who are not the relatives of the husband

cannot be inflicted with offence under Section 498-A in Siridarika

Tatarao v. State of A.P.,5 B. Saritha Rajya Lakshmi v. State of A.P.6

and Venkata Naga Malleswari Anamaripudi v. State of A.P.7

11. In the case on hand, in the charge sheet, it is alleged that the

Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 are the relatives of Accused No.1 and

that when the Complainant contacted Accused Nos.2 to 7 to know the

whereabouts of Accused No.1, they abused her in filthy language and

threatened with dire consequences that they would kill her and her

parents if she tries to contact them. The charge sheet further discloses

that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 are Christians and the other

2024 SCC OnLine AP 1997

2024 SCC OnLine AP 382

2023 SCC OnLine AP 4319

Accused and the Complainant are Muslims. Whereas, the complaint

would reveal that, Accused No.1 and the Complainant used to work in the

school of Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 at Chilakaluripet and on one

day, the Petitioners insulted the Complainant in front of Accused No.1

and other staff by commenting her teaching capacity and her educational

qualification. Nowhere, in the complaint, it is averred that the Petitioners

are the relatives of Accused No.1. On the conglomeration of the facts

and circumstances, it can be held that they are not the relatives of the

family of the Accused. Such being the case, invoking Section 498-A I.P.C.

against the Petitioners is unwarranted.

12. Further, nowhere, either in the charge sheet or in the complaint, it

is mentioned about the involvement of the Petitioners in the commission

of the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Allegations made in

the complaint or charge sheet do not prima facie constitute any offence or

make out a case against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 for the

offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. In

such circumstances, this Court is of the view that continuation of

proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 is an abuse of

process of law and hence, the proceedings against them are liable to be

quashed.

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

Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 in C.C.No.49 of 2018 on the file of the

Court of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:28.06.2024 Dinesh

L.R.Copy to be marked

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Dt.28.06.2024

Dinesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1417 of 2020

Between:

1. JOHN SRAMPIKAL, S/O.ULA HASSAIN SRAMPICKAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. SCHOOL CORRESPONDENT, R/O. DOOR NO.35-319/1, NEAR ST.XYASIR ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, PURUSHOTHAPATNAM, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. SRAMPIKAL BYSIYAMMA JOHN, W/O. JOHN SRAMPIKAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O. DOOR NO.35- 319/1, NEAR ST.XYASIR ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, PURUSHOTHAPATNAM, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI.

2. SHAIK JAHARA BEGUM, , W/O. AJEESH BASHEER NASSEHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.DOOR NO.15-10-34, 2ND LANE, VINOBHANAGAR, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28.06.2024

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.1417 of 2020

% 28.06.2024

Between:

1. JOHN SRAMPIKAL, S/O.ULA HASSAIN SRAMPICKAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. SCHOOL CORRESPONDENT, R/O. DOOR NO.35-319/1, NEAR ST.XYASIR ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, PURUSHOTHAPATNAM, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. SRAMPIKAL BYSIYAMMA JOHN, W/O. JOHN SRAMPIKAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O. DOOR NO.35- 319/1, NEAR ST.XYASIR ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, PURUSHOTHAPATNAM, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI.

2. SHAIK JAHARA BEGUM, , W/O. AJEESH BASHEER NASSEHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.DOOR NO.15-10-34, 2ND LANE, VINOBHANAGAR, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.