IMPORTANT POINT
Dowry offences – Phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Both the appeals are being disposed of by the present common order.

3. The present appeals arise out of orders dated (i) 11.11.2022 in Criminal Petition No. 5710 of 2021 (the ‘Impugned Order I’) and (ii) 23.11.2022 in Criminal Petition No. 2768 of 2022 (the ‘Impugned Order II’), passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (collectively referred to as the ‘Impugned Orders’).

4. Vide the Impugned Orders, the High Court refused to quash the Docket Order dated 20.07.2021 which reinitiated criminal proceedings against the Appellants for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 of the IPC & u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Brief Facts

5. The Appellants before us are the husband and the in-laws of Respondent No. 2 i.e., the de-facto complainant. After the case against the Appellants for the aforementioned offences was instituted, the parties were referred to the Lok Adalat by the Trial Court.

6. As per the Docket Order dated 26.06.2021, the parties entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalat and in consideration of the same, a petition for compounding of the offences was allowed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Appellants were acquitted by the Trial Court.

7. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 altered her position and filed a memo before the Trial Court withdrawing her consent from the compromise. Consequently, vide Docket Order dated 20.07.2021, the Trial Court reopened the proceedings against the Appellants.

8. Aggrieved by this development, the Appellants approached the High Court u/s. 482 CrPC seeking to quash the Docket Order dated 20.07.2021 on inter alia grounds that Respondent No. 2 sought to reopen the criminal proceedings only to wreak vengeance upon the Appellants.

9. In case of the Appellant-husband, vide Impugned Order II, the High Court upheld the Docket Order dated 20.07.2021 and the set aside the compromise between the parties in view of the amendment¹[Andhra Pradesh Act 11 of 2003, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 01.08.2003)] to Sec. 320(2) CrPC, applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh. As per the amendment, compounding of an offence u/s. 498A is only permissible after a lapse of three months from the date of request for compounding.

10. In case of the in-laws, vide Impugned Order I, the High Court refused to grant the relief sought, noting the existence of prima facie allegations against the Appellants. However, in recognition of the fact that the allegations were general and omnibus in nature, the High Court dispensed with the presence of the Appellants during the trial and furthermore, left it open for the Trial Court to conduct trial.

Submissions & Analysis:

11. Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently submits that a bare perusal of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 and the charge-sheet plainly discloses the absence of any necessary ingredients of the charged offences. It is submitted that the allegations are wholly general and omnibus in nature, made only with the intention to harass the Appellants, amounting to an abuse of the process of the law.

12. To buttress his contention, Learned Counsel for the Appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that Respondent No. 2 filed a petition seeking divorce and only thereafter, the memo seeking reopening of the criminal proceedings against the Appellants was filed before the Trial Court.

13. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is significant merit in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses’ and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the Appellants. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commis