Nagisetty Vijayalakshmi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 10161 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10161 AP
Judgement Date : 12 November, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nagisetty Vijayalakshmi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 November, 2024

                                  ::1::



APHC010291022022
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3396]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

            TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                               PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI
                       PRATAPA

                    CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4965/2022

Between:

Nagisetty Vijayalakshmi, and Others       ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

                                 AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

   1. THANDAVA YOGESH

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

   1. K VARUN SHYAM KUMAR

   2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following

ORDER:

The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C) has been filed, by the

Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 & 6, seeking to quash the proceedings in ::2::

C.C.No.613 of 2020on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, registered for the

offences Under Sections 498-A & 494 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'D.P. Act).

2. Heard Sri T. Yogesh, learned counsel for the Petitioners, SriSoora

Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms. K.

Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the

State.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the

Petitioners herein are A5 and A6. A5 is the sister of A1 and A6 is her

husband. Learned counsel further would submit that the offence U/s 494

IPC is not maintainable against A5 and A6 simply by saying they have

abetted A1 to harass his wife. The allegations made against the

Petitioners are vague and general in nature and omnibus.

(a) Learned counsel further would submit that the marriage of A1

with Respondent No.2 took place on 16.04.2008. Learned counsel

further would submit that A1 obtained divorce with Respondent No.2

before Foreign Court on 04.07.2017 and got second marriage on

29.03.2018. Learned counsel further would submit that the decree

passed by theForeign Court granting divorce in favour of A1 is still in ::3::

force and that was not either challenged or touched by any competent

Court in India. Learned counsel finally prays for quashment of the case

against the Petitioners.

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

that the statement of the Complainant before the police would reveal the

specific allegations against the Petitioners. The contentions raised in the

present petition are a matter of trial. This Court cannot quash the case

against the Petitioners while exercising the jurisdiction U/s 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. As can be seen from the record, the marriage of A1 with

Respondent No.2 took place on 16.04.2008 and the couple were

blessed with a baby boy on 18.08.2009. The complaint would show that

the Petitioner/A5 herein is a married sister of A1 and she never stayed

with the family of A1 and Respondent No.2. All the allegations are made

against A1 and his parents relating to alleged demand of additional

dowry and also harassment of A1 towards Respondent No.2 physically

and mentally.

6. The complaint further would show that A1 got registered his

marriage i.e., the second marriage before Sub-Registrar, Badwel on

30.08.2018. No contra material has been placed before this Court ::4::

disputing the divorce obtained by A1 dated 04.07.2017. Such being the

case, proceeding with the case against the Petitioners for the offence

U/s 494 does not arise.

7. Coming to the offence U/s 498-A, except the vague allegation that

the Petitioners insisted the A1 to harass his wife for getting additional

dowry, no specific instance has been referred. It is beneficial to refer the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs.

State of Bihar case1, wherein it was 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 leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the

2022 1 S.C.R 558 ::5::