Chilamkurthi Raghavamma Aruna, ... vs Chilamkurthy Lavanya Janyavula ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4613 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                       CRL.P.No.2383 OF 2015
ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in

S.C.No.557 of 2014, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Peddapalli, Karimnagar District.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners-A-2 to A-4

and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the second respondent-

State. None represented the second respondent-de facto

complainant. Perused the record.

3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1

and petitioner No.3/A-4 is the sister of A-1. A-1 is the husband of

the second respondent and A-5 is the cousin of A-1.

4. The second respondent filed a complaint before Police,

Godavarikhani I Town, alleging that the marriage between

her and A-1 was performed on 16.05.2010 at Machilipatnam as

per Hindu customs and traditions. At the time of marriage, the

parents of complainant presented cash of Rs.10 lakhs, three

sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- towards sister-in-law

presentation (adapaduchu lanchanam) and also one acre of land in

A-1, in the presence of elders. A-1 was working as Deputy

Manager in II Incline Mine, Godavarikhani. After marriage, they

started their conjugal life at Power House Colony, Godavarikhani

and after some time, A-1 to A-3 started harassing her mentally and

physically demanding her to get additional dowry. A-1 threatened

her that if she fails to bring additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs,

he would perform second marriage. A-1 caused enquiries about her

character and also harassed her by saying that she was having

affairs with her colleagues. During the absence of A-1, A-1's

cousin used to visit their house and harassed her sexually by saying

that he would look after her well if she cohabits with him which is

common their family. She informed the same to her husband, but

he also supported his cousin and later she informed her

ordeals to her parents by way of phone calls and messages.

On 26.03.2014, she came to know that A-1 filed a divorce case

against her, though she was leading conjugal life with him by

exaggerating that she was living separately. Based on the said

complaint, Police, Godavarikhani I Town registered a case in

Cr.No.160 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 354 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

and took up investigation and after completion of investigation,

filed charge sheet against petitioners-A-2 to A-4 and others (A-1 &

A-5). Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed by

petitioners-A-2 to A-4 to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that A-2

and A-3 are senior citizens and A-3 is a retired employee of

Singareni Collieries; that the main thrust of the allegations is

against A-1 and there are no specific allegations against A-2 to

A-4; that A-1 filed H.M.O.P.No.20 of 2014 before the Senior Civil

Judge, Peddapalli for divorce and after receipt of the said notice,

the complainant lodged a complaint with police on 17.04.2014 with

all false and baseless allegations; that A-3 is presently aged about

81 years and residing at Ramavarappadu Village of Vijayawada

Rural, Krishna District and they never visited Godavarikhani or

resided with A-1 and the complainant; and that A-3 is married

sister of A-1 and her marriage was performed in 2008 with

one Kiran Kumar and later she joined her husband and was

working as School Teacher, Khanapur, Adilabad District and she

never involved into the matrimonial affairs of A-1 and she has been

falsely roped in only to harass them. The learned senior counsel

prayed to quash the proceeding against the petitioners-A-2 to A-4.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

submits that the allegations in the FIR/complaint and charge sheet

prima facie constitute commission of alleged offences and that the

proceedings may be allowed to continue and the truth or otherwise

of the allegations in the FIR/complaint and charge sheet would

come to light only after trial.

7. A perusal of the complainant/FIR and charge sheet discloses

that the marriage of the complainant and A-1 was held on

16.05.2010 and at the time of marriage, on the demand of A-1 to

A-3, the parents of the complainant gave an amount of Rs.10 lakhs

in cash, three sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/-

towards adapaduchu lanchanam and also one acre of land to A-1

and after marriage, they started living together. A-1 to A-3

harassed her physically and mentally demanding additional

dowry. The allegations in the charge sheet would reveal that they

are made mainly against A-1 and A-5. The complainant has made

a vague allegation against the parents of A-1 that they have also

harassed her mentally and physically and demanded her dowry.

Admittedly, it is no where mentioned in the complaint on what

date, and when and what was the specific demand made by them.

The complainant also made serious allegations against A-5, who is

cousin of A-1, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 354 IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the

complaint, there is no specific allegation against A-4, except

stating that the she has supported her parents A-2 and A-3 and

demanded additional dowry and harassed her mentally and

physically. It is evident from the allegations in the charge sheet

and complaint and also the statements of the witnesses, there are no

specific allegations against the petitioners-A-2 to A-4 prima facie

attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged.

8. In MANJU RAM KALITA v STATE OF ASSAM1, the

Hon'ble Apex Court at Page 22 held thus:

(2009) 13 SCC 330

"Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/ inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty ontinuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as `cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty".

9. In STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL2, the

Hon'ble Apex Court laid the following guidelines while exercising

the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and gave the following

categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such power

could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice, as under:

(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers

1992 SCC (Cri) 426

under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e)   where      the    allegations          made      in     the     FIR      or
      complaint        are       so         absurd       and         inherently
      improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g)   where      a     criminal         proceeding           is     manifestly
      attended         with       mala         fide         and/or      where

the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulteriormotive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge".

10. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held at

paragraph 103 as under:

"We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice".

11. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the above said

decision, in the instant case, there are no specific allegations

against the petitioners-A-2 to A-4 to attract any of the ingredients

of the offences alleged and to proceed against them by conducting

trial. It appears from the allegations in the charge sheet that

the complainant made omnibus allegations against A-2 to A-4 with

an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on A-1, since the

entire case proceedings prima facie did not make out any of the

ingredients of the offences alleged and continuation of the

proceedings would certainly lead to insurmountable harassment,

agony and pain to the petitioners. The learned senior counsel for

the petitioners in his submissions has specifically stated that A-3

was never staying with the complainant and A-1 and she was

residing near Vijayawada and similarly A-4, who is sister of A-1,

is married and residing at her matrimonial home, which is

180 kms away from the place of the complainant. The complainant

has made omnibus allegations against the petitioners and such

allegations of harassment of husband's close relatives who had

been living at different places and rarely visit the place where the

complainant resided have to be viewed with great care, caution and

circumspection. It appears from the material on record that

since no specific allegations to constitute prima facie material

against petitioners have been made, it would be unfair to compel

them to undergo the rigmarole of criminal trial.

12. Under those circumstances, it is held that continuance of

further proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in

S.C.No.557 of 2014 only amounts to abuse of process of law and

would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, considered a

fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section

482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioners/

A-2 to A-4 in S.C.No.557 of 2014.

13. The criminal petition is, accordingly, allowed. The

proceedings against the against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in

S.C.No.557 of 2014, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, are hereby quashed.

14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 14.09.2022 Lrkm