Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 936
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
A. Santhosh Reddy, J.
P. Rajeshwari & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of A. P. & Anr. – Respondents
Crl.P. Nos. 6400 and 7242 of 2013
Decided On : 14-07-2022
False implication of relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes based on general and omnibus allegations, without any specific instances of their involvement, amounts to an abuse of process of law and can be quashed by the court under its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PETITION - DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 - SECTION 3, 4 - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 498-A, 354 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - OMNIBUS ALLEGATIONS - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - RELATIVES OF HUSBAND IMPLICATED IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES - SUFFICIENCY OF MATERIAL - SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF INVOLVEMENT - FALSE IMPLICATION - MISUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, relatives of the husband of the second respondent, were implicated in a dowry harassment case based on general and omnibus allegations. The second respondent alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and in-laws, including the petitioners, for additional dowry. The petitioners challenged the proceedings against them, arguing that there was no sufficient material to proceed against them and that their implication was an abuse of process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were general and omnibus in nature and did not disclose any specific instances of their involvement in the alleged offences. The court also noted that the petitioners were residents of a different place and had no direct involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the second respondent's matrimonial home. The court further observed that the second respondent had not taken any action against the petitioners for several years, which raised doubts about the genuineness of the allegations.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations against the petitioners were sufficient to proceed against them for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act? 2. Whether the implication of the petitioners in the case amounted to an abuse of process of law?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several judgments of the Supreme Court, including Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Mirza Iqbal alias Golu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that false implication of relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes based on general and omnibus allegations, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. The court also noted that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law to prevent such misuse.
Final Decision: The court allowed both the criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in P.R.C.No.123 of 2013 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur.
COMMON ORDER
1. Crl.P.No.6400 of 2013 is filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.123 of 2013 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur.
2. Crl.P.No.7242 of 2013 is filed by the petitioner/A-3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.123 of 2013 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur.
3. Since these two criminal petitions arose out of the same crime number and one P.R.C., they are being disposed of by way of common order.
4. The second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Miyapur alleging that her marriage with A-1 took place on 14.12.2006 at Gold Merchant Association Community Hall, Gandhi Bazaar, Ongole, Prakasham District. During the time of marriage, Rs.5.00 lakhs cash and 25 tulas of gold were given towards dowry to the accused. Since the day of marriage, in-laws started harassing the second respondent on one or other pretext and suspecting her fidelity. It is alleged that A-1 harassed the second respondent physically and mentally for additional dowry. The second respondent went to the house of her in-laws at Ongole during the month of February, 2007 for leading marital life. A-1 continued the harassment and used to come in drunken condition and used to undress her and beat her till early hours of the following day. On their demand, the father of the second respondent gave additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs on 20.04.2007. A-3 husband of A- 4 expressed his sympathy towards her and took her forcefully in his lap and tried to caress her, when the second respondent resisted and tried to run away, upon which A-3 told that entire family would support him. When she revealed the incident the entire family supported him and warned her that she has no option except to satisfy him and he tore her blouse. With great difficulty, the second respondent hit him with pestle and he sustained injuries. It is also alleged that the second respondent informed to A-1 and her father-in- law, they called A-3 and A-4 and all of them gagged her mouth and mercilessly beat her. Thereafter, the second respondent was brought by A-1 to Hyderabad on 28.02.2007 and left her at her parents house.
5. It is also alleged that the mother-in-law of the second respondent was insisting her to do all house-hold work and find fault with her deliberately and used to abuse her in filthy language. During the month of June, 2011, A-4 along with his cousin brother came to her residence and threatened with dire consequences if additional dowry is not given. On 16.03.2012 midnight her husband contacted to the father of the second respondent and threatened him with dire consequences if he does not convince his daughter to join him. Basing on the complaint referred, a case in crime No.203 of 2012 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the A-1 and the petitioners/A-2 and A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections.498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-A and 354 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A-3 and the same was numbered as PRC.No.123 of 2013 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petitions are filed.
6. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State. None represented the second respondent. Perused the material on record.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are relatives of husband of the second respondent and they were residing in different places and she made all the allegations against her husband only except saying that A-3 touched her hand in the year 2007 and that too when her brief stay of two months in her
