Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J.
Aluri Thirupathi Rao – Appellant
Versus
Aluri Venkata Ramana –Respondent
Criminal Petition No.3147 of 2023
Decided on : 04-07-2023
Section 498A IPC - Quashing of Proceedings - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 498A IPC - The court discussed the definition of 'cruelty' under Section 498A IPC and its two separate limbs, as well as the interpretation of 'cruelty' in relation to willful conduct and harassment. The court referred to various decisions to establish that either the willful conduct or the harassment mentioned in the explanation would constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. The court concluded that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A IPC is unsustainable and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sattenapalli, as against the petitioners/A1 & A2.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint under Section 498A IPC against six accused persons, alleging harassment and beating of the de facto complainant by her husband and mother-in-law. The police laid charge sheet against A1 and A2 only for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 IPC and dropped the case against A3 to A6.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made against the petitioners did not constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC since there was no complaint that the petitioners harassed the de facto complainant demanding any amount of dowry. The court discussed the definition of 'cruelty' under Section 498A IPC and its two separate limbs, as well as the interpretation of 'cruelty' in relation to willful conduct and harassment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations made against the petitioners constituted the offence under Section 498A IPC, and the interpretation of 'cruelty' under the said section.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of 'cruelty' under Section 498A IPC and various decisions to establish that either the willful conduct or the harassment mentioned in the explanation would constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A IPC.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sattenapalli, as against the petitioners/A1 & A2.
ORDER :
This criminal petition, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred by A1 & A2 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sattenapalli.
2. Heard Sri N. Sriram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kambampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/de facto complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent/State.
3. The facts leading to filing of this petition are briefly as follows:
On 17.07.2017 on the complaint of the de facto complainant/ 1st respondent herein, a case in FIR No.112 of 2017 was registered by the Atchampet Police under Section 498A read with 34 IPC against six (6) accused persons. The 1st respondent complained that she was married to A1 on 21.08.2005 and at the time of her marriage, her parents (Lws 3 & 4) gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/-and gold ornaments worth Rs.10,00,000/-and that the couple have one daughter and one son after they set up their family in Thullur immediately after the marriage. She further stated that in April, 2015, A1 had given her Rs.40,000/-to give the amount to the parents of 1st respondent as she asked him stating that her parents needed that amount, but, before she gave the amount to her parents, one Subhani who is a Tailor in their village had taken the said amount stating that he needed it because of ill-health of his son who was hospitalized and promised to return the same within four (4) days, however, he failed to return the amount as promised. She further stated that at that time there cropped up disputes among the de facto complainant, her husband/A1 and her mother-in-law/ A2 in relation to the said amount and that taking advantage of the dispute, Aluri Ashok Kumar (A3) who is the son of her senior father-in-law, Nathani Srinadh (A4) who is the maternal uncle of A1, Nathani Sambasivarao (A5) and Kaka Chanti (A6) unnecessarily interfered in her family affairs and made baseless attributions against her and on 23.08.2015, A1, A2 and A4 beat her. It is also stated that she had informed the dispute to her maternal uncle, Narasimha Rao and so he had settled the dispute stating that he would make good the amount, if necessary, but even then again on 25.08.2015, at about 10 am, A1 to A5 beat the de facto complainant pushing her with hands and legs and telephoned to her maternal uncle, Narasimha Rao, and thereby, she returned to her maternal home. She further complained that she went to the matrimonial home many times along with her maternal uncle to join A1, but she was prevented from entering into the house stating that she had nothing to do there and asking her to stay at her maternal home only.
4. After investigation, police laid charge sheet against A1 and A2 only for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 IPC and dropped the case against A3 to A6.
5. Having been aggrieved by the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate against A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 498A read with 34 IPC, this petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners do not constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC since there is no complaint that the petitioners harassed the de facto complainant demanding any amount of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions in Onkar Nath Mishra and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 561, State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusdudhan Rao, (2008) 15 Supreme Court cases 582, and Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2018) 10 Supreme Court Cases 472.
7. According to the learned counsel, the explanation appended to Section 498A IPC requires that there must be demand for dowry to constitute ‘cruelty’ which is made punishable under Section 498A IPC.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and 2nd the learned
Cruelty under Section 498A IPC is defined independently of any dowry demand; physical and mental abuse constitute sufficient grounds for charges under this section.
The absence of evidence supporting a dowry demand negates the conviction under Section 498A unless proven that conduct resulted in cruelty independent of such demands.
(1) Cruelty – Term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances – Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to c....
Allegations under Section 498-A IPC must be specific; omnibus claims lack legal sufficiency to support prosecution.
The court reinforced that for adding accused in dowry cases, specific allegations must be made; general accusations are insufficient to proceed.
Proceedings against relatives in dowry cases must allege specific conduct; general allegations fail to establish a prima facie case.
The court established that the addition of accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires a prima facie case, and the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can prevent abuse of process.
The court established that vague allegations in dowry harassment cases do not warrant criminal proceedings against relatives, emphasizing the need for specific accusations.
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
