Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
R. Sankaraiah R. L. Sankar Naidu – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 7026 of 2017
Decided On : 19-04-2022
CRIMINAL PETITION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 - SECTIONS 498A, 420, 354 IPC - OMNIBUS ACCUSATIONS - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, A.4, A.5, and A.7, were accused of demanding additional dowry and subjecting the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant to physical and mental harassment. The allegations were made in a charge sheet filed by the police after an investigation into a report lodged by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners challenged the proceedings against them, arguing that the allegations were vague and omnibus and that there was no specific mention of dates or times when the alleged incidents occurred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were vague and omnibus, and that there was no specific mention of dates or times when the alleged incidents occurred. The court also noted that the petitioners were distantly related to the accused and not immediate family, and that they resided separately at different places. The court further noted that the case against A.1 and A.6, who were more directly involved in the alleged incidents, had already been quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations against the petitioners were vague and omnibus, and whether there was any specific mention of dates or times when the alleged incidents occurred? 2. Whether the petitioners were distantly related to the accused and not immediate family, and whether they resided separately at different places? 3. Whether the case against A.1 and A.6, who were more directly involved in the alleged incidents, had already been quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations against the petitioners were vague and omnibus, and that there was no specific mention of dates or times when the alleged incidents occurred. The court also held that the petitioners were distantly related to the accused and not immediate family, and that they resided separately at different places. The court further held that the case against A.1 and A.6, who were more directly involved in the alleged incidents, had already been quashed. The court concluded that the continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 385 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. Petitioners herein are arrayed as A.4, A.5 and A.7 in the said case.2. Basing on a report lodged by 2nd respondent-defacto complainant, police registered a case in crime No. 57 of 2015, and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 354 IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations, in brief, may be stated as follows.
Marriage of 2nd respondent- defacto complainant with A.1 took place on 04.03.2012 in Arya Vysya Kalyana Mandapam, Tirupati as per hindu rites and customs, and Rs. 30.00 lakhs cash and 700 grams of gold jewels were given towards dowry on the demand of A.1 to A.7. A.2 to A.7 celebrated the marriage having knowledge that A.1 is impotent and thereby cheated 2nd respondent- defacto complainant. A.1 did not participate in sexual intercourse with her and used to sleep separately, on the pretext that till he gets H1 Visa, he will not participate in it. Later, A.1 alone went to America leaving her under the care of A.2 to A.7, and they subjected her to physical and mental harassment demanding additional dowry. When her father agreed to give Rs. 5.00 lakhs, A.1 took her to America and subjected her to both physical and mental harassment for want of additional dowry. When a mediation was held, A.2 to A.7 reiterated their demand for additional dowry. When she forced A.1 for sexual intercourse, on 02.09.2015, A.1 admitted his impotency and requested not to reveal the same to anybody. On 03.09.2015, when she was alone in kitchen, A.2 approached her, caught hold of her hand and demanded her to fulfil his sexual desires. Hence, the report.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are related to A.1 and admittedly they are residents of Chittoor district, a far away place from the place where A.1 and others are residing; that a perusal of the recitals in charge sheet shows that vague and bald allegations have been made against the petitioners that they demanded additional dowry and subjected 2nd respondent-defacto complainant to both physical and mental cruelty, and absolutely no date or time has been mentioned either in the First Information Report or in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; that apart from the said accusation as against the petitioners, there is no other material that the petitioners are involving in day to day affairs of A.1 and 2nd respondent-defacto complainant.
It is his further contention that proceedings against A.1 were quashed by this Court as per order dated 09.04.2019 in Criminal Petition No.9432 of 2018 and the proceedings A.6 were quashed as per order dated 21.04.2017 in Criminal Petition No.1984 of 2017, and the case of petitioners stand on better footing than that of A.1 and A.6.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the quash petition on the ground that there are specific allegations contained in the charge sheet, though omnibus in nature, and contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioners are all disputed questions of fact and the same have to be decided in the course of trial and this is a premature stage where this Court cannot interfere in the matter.
6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact 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 and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
Vague and omnibus accusations, without specific mention of dates or times of alleged incidents, and against distantly related accused who reside separately, can amount to abuse of process of Court an....
The court ruled that specific allegations against the petitioners established prima facie offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, warranting continuation of proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of law and ensure the ends of justice.
The judgment established the need to scrutinize allegations in dowry harassment cases and prevent the abuse of process of the court, especially when vague and general accusations are made against the....
In dowry harassment cases, specific overt acts must be identified against relatives for proceedings; vague allegations are insufficient to sustain charges.
The court established that vague allegations of dowry and cruelty do not constitute a prima facie case, warranting quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.
The court emphasized the need to curtail vague and omnibus accusations in dowry harassment cases and prevent the abuse of the court's process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
