Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Golamari Kavith vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 November, 2024
APHC010089292022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1508/2022
Between:
GOLAMARI KAVITHA, W/O RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O FLAT NO 236/F JANA PRIYA NAGAR
MIYAPUR HYDERABAD NOW RESIDING AT TUSCAN PARK VILLA
BELLRITTEE CAPE TOWN POSTAL CODE 7550 SOUTH AFRICA
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP AMARAVATHI
2. CHEGIREDDY BHARGAVI, W/O GOLAMARI RAJASEKHAR AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O HAJARATHGUDEM
VILLAGE CUMBUM MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. G R SUDHAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.4, to quash the
proceedings against her in C.C.No.575 of 2020 on the file of the Court of
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddaluru, Prakasam District, for
the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
State/Respondent No.1. Inspite of service of notice, none represented for
Respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the
Petitioner/Accused No.4, is the married sister of Accused No.1. Learned
counsel would further submit that the Petitioner left for South Africa on
10.04.2016, whereas the present case has been lodged by Respondent No.2
on 04.01.2020. It is submitted that the Petitioner never resided with Accused
No.1 and Respondent No.2 in the same house. Learned counsel would
further submit that, except the omnibus allegations, there are no specific
allegations against the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that,
the passport of the Petitioner would show that she left for South Africa on
10.04.2016 and has been residing there. She has not even visited India since
the said date. Only to trouble the Petitioner, a false case has been lodged
against her. Learned counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.2 has
been staying with her parents since 23.11.2019. Learned counsel finally
prays for quashment of the case against the Petitioner.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor though opposed the petition, fairly
represented that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner,
except the general allegations.
5. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Kans Raj v. State Of Punjab1, wherein, it was held 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 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)
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and
another2, highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration
and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, which are the corresponding Sections to
Section 498-A IPC. The relevant observations made in the context of the
present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as
follows;
"25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general
and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any
specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of
the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the
allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny
to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth
in the allegations or whether they are made only with the
sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal
AIR 2000 SC 2324
2024 INSC 369
charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a
matrimonial dispute."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the contents of the
complaint, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, except
making bald and vague allegations, no specific incident has been referred in
the complaint, to prima facie attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act against the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner has placed reliance on the copy of the passport of the Petitioner to
show that she left for South Africa on 10.04.2016 and did not return India till
date. This Court has made a request to the Prosecution to verify the
genuineness of the copy of the passport, which is placed on record. Learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the concerned authorities,
would submit that the copy of the passport, which is placed before this Court
is a genuine one and that the Petitioner left for South Africa on 10.04.2016
and did not visit India till then.
8. In the backdrop of the legal positions referred to supra, and in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, since no specific allegations are made
against the Petitioner and that, four years prior to lodging of the present
complaint, the Petitioner left for South Africa, this Court is of the view that,
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is a sheer
abuse of process of law and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings
against Petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.575 of 2020 on the file of the Court
of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddaluru, Prakasam District,
for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:14.11.2024
Dinesh
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dt.14.11.2024
Dinesh
