Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rodda Vijayasree vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 September, 2024
APHC010101082022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2033/2022
Between:
1. RODDA VIJAYASREE, W/O ANIL KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS,
AMUDALA APPALASWAMY COLONY, ELURU.
2. RODDA VASANTHA KUMAR, S/O ANIL KUMAR, AGED 21 YEARS
(SHOWN AS 39 YEARS IN CHARGE SHEET), AMUDALA
APPALASWAMY COLONY, ELURU.
3. NALLAMILLI KRISHNA KUMARI, W/O KANAKIPATI BENAHAR @
RAMARAO, AGED 66 YEARS, AMUDALA APPALASWAMY COLONY,
ELURU.
4. RODDA MOUNICA, D/O ANILKUMAR, AGED 18 YEARS, AMUDALA
APPALASWAMY COLONY, ELURU.
5. RODDA VINNI @ MADHURI, (MENTIONED AS VINNI IN CHARGE
SHEET), D/O ANIL KUMAR,AGED 16 YEARS, AMUDALA
APPALASWAMY COLONY, ELURU. (BEING A MINOR REP., BY
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST PETITIONER)
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,
AMARAVATHI.
2. GOLLA HELEN, W/O PETER DANIEL, D.NO. LIG-173, APHB
COLONY, SATRAMPADU, ELURU TWON.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. BILAAL AHMED SYED
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6, seeking
quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.56 of 2021 on the file of
the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
19613.
2. The facts of the case, as mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as
follows:
a) The marriage of Respondent No.2 herein was performed with
Accused No.1 on 29.05.2002 at Eluru and at the time of marriage, the
Accused were given dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and 120 sovereigns of gold towards
dowry and other lanchanams.
b) Out of wedlock, they were blessed with a female and a male
child. Subsequently, Accused No.1 used to subject her to physical and
mental cruelty by demanding additional dowry.
c) From the year 2015, Accused No.1 used to come to the house
once in a month and whenever he came to the house, he used to abuse and
beat her indiscriminately.
for short „Cr.P.C‟
for short „IPC‟
for short „D.P.Act‟
d) He used to roam with Petitioner/Accused No.2 and when
Respondent No.2 questioned him about the same, he stated that he married
her and he used to stay with Petitioner/Accused No.2. When Respondent
No.2 along with her brother and elders went to the house of
Petitioner/Accused No.2 for Accused No.1, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3
used to abuse her in filthy language and threatened to kill her stating that
Accused No.1 is the husband of Petitioner/Accused No.2.
e) Whenever Respondent No.2 along with elders went to the house
of Petitioner/Accused No.2, all the Petitioners herein along with Accused
No.1 tried to kill her and her children.
f) Based on the complaint lodged by Respondent, a case in Crime
No.74 of 2020 on the file of Women Police Station, West Godavari has been
registered for the offence under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act against all the Accused and the Police after
completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 2
for the said offences stating that there are no accusations against
Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6. However, the learned Magistrate had taken
cognizance against all the Accused.
Grounds sought for quashment:
3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the present petition is
filed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 to quash the proceedings against them
in the above C.C on the following grounds:
a) Petitioners have not committed any offence much less the alleged
offence.
b) Petitioners are neither the family members nor the relatives of Accused
No.1 and Respondent No.2.
c) The present complaint has been filed against Accused No.1 and also
the Petitioners with false, frivolous and vexatious attributions.
d) As there is no evidence to prove the case against Accused Nos.3 to 6,
the investigating officer excluded / deleted the names of the Petitioners herein
from the charge sheet.
e) The Petitioners are no way concerned with the lives of either Accused
No.1 or Respondent No.2.
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri Bilal Ahmed Syed, 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.2 to 6, who are no way related to Accused No.1 and
Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would submit that there are no specific
allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence.
The Investigating Officer, after investigation, deleted the names of
Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 as there are no accusations against them, but
the learned Magistrate erroneously had taken cognizance against all the
Petitioners. The present case has been lodged by implicating the Petitioners.
Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 is an abuse of process of law.
6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that there
are specific allegations against the Petitioners for the commission of the
alleged offence. The veracity of the said allegations will be revealed during
trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
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.2 to 6 in
C.C.No.56 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru?
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. It is alleged against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 that Accused
No.1 used to stay with Petitioner/Accused No.2 and when Respondent No.2
went to the house of Petitioner/Accused No.2 for Accused No.1,
Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to abuse her in filthy language and
threatened to kill her stating that Accused No.1 is the husband of
Petitioner/Accused No.2. Further, all the Petitioners herein along with
Accused No.1 tried to kill her and her children.
10. Admittedly, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6, are neither the family
members nor the relatives of Accused No.1. 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.
(2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 36
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 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)
11. This Court has reiterated the view expressed in U. Suvetha (referred
supra) 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
that persons who are not the relatives of the husband cannot be inflicted with
offence under Section 498-A IPC.
12. In the case on hand, Police after due investigation, filed charge sheet,
wherein, it was mentioned that according to the testimony of the witnesses
examined, there was no alibi to prove the accusations against Accused Nos.3
to 6, who are the son, mother and daughters respectively of
Petitioner/Accused No.2, and they are falsely implicated in the case and
2024 SCC OnLine AP 1997
2024 SCC OnLine AP 382
2023 SCC OnLine AP 4319
hence, the names of Accused Nos.3 to 6 have been deleted and filed charge
sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the said offences.
13. It is not the case of Respondent No.2 that the Petitioners herein are the
relatives of Accused No.1. Such being the case, invoking Section 498-A
I.P.C. against the Petitioners is unwarranted. Since the Petitioners herein are
not the family members of Accused No.1, in view of the judgment in U.
Suvetha‟s case (supra), they cannot be inflicted with the offence under
Section 498-A IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
14. So far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, in order to
prove said offence, Respondent No.2 is required to prove that the Petitioners
had threatened her with injury to her person, reputation or property and that
they did so with an intent to cause alarm and to cause Respondent No.2 to
perform any act which they are not legally bound to do. The threat should be
a real and not just a mere word. Empty threats do not mean that the case
under Section 506 IPC is made out. An offence under this Section by words
cannot be made out unless it is proved that these words were uttered with
specific intention. In the instant case, except mere allegation of threatening,
there is no material against the Petitioners to attract the offence under Section
506 IPC as well. Therefore, this Court is of the view that continuation of
proceedings for the offence under Section 506 IPC would be an abuse of
process of law.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in the judgments referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude that the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to
6 indicate that there are no grounds to the connect the Petitioners with the
offences alleged against them and thereby, continuation of criminal
proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the
Petitioners in the above case.
16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against
the Petitioners /Accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.56 of 2021 on the file of the
Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, for the offence
under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 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:02.09.2024
Dinesh
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dt. 02.09.2024
Dinesh
