The Court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the legitimacy of criminal proceedings and the need to prevent abuse of process, especially when allegations are manifestly attended with malafides and actuated with an ulterior motive.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking quash of proceedings in C.C.No.1852 of 2014 pending on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

2. Heard Sri Karri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Though notice was sent to the 2nd respondent, she did not contest the matter.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. She is the wife of the petitioner/accused. She lodged a report with III Town Police Station on 08.08.2014 and she was directed to Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam to report the matter against the petitioner/accused. She filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner/accused was continuously harassing her both mentally and physically by beating with hands and with a penknife demanding her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- towards additional dowry and Rs.30,000/- for looking after her two daughters, from her parents. When the 2nd respondent informed her in-laws about the harassment caused by the petitioner/accused, they did not question him and in turn, had supported him. The 2nd respondent informed the same to her parents and raised disputes before the elders at the house of the petitioner/accused at Chaitanya Nagar, Maddilapalem. But, the petitioner/accused abused the elders and necked them out of the house saying that they should not interfere with his family disputes. On the basis of the report given by the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.69 of 2014 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City by the Inspector of Police. The crime was investigated and eventually having found prima-facie evidence against the petitioner/accused regarding his complicity in the commission of the said offences, the Investigating Officer had filed the charge sheet in the trial Court. The said case is pending before I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam vide C.C.No.1852 of 2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the 2nd respondent made a false complaint against the petitioner. Petitioner/accused filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and it was allowed and the 2nd respondent had not joined to lead the conjugal life. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused filed a petition for a decree of divorce and the same was also allowed on 02.04.2009. After the lapse of nearly 5 ½ years, the 2nd respondent had given a report against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by making false allegations. As such, the present prosecution under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is not maintainable. It is further contended that the said orders are not set aside by any Court nor pending before the concerned Courts. Therefore, he would pray for quashing the said charge sheet against the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the criminal petition contending that there are clear allegations against the petitioner/accused. On account of his conduct, the 2nd respondent was forced to stay away. With a fond hope that the petitioner would change his attitude, the 2nd respondent had not given a report to the Police prior to the filing of the above referred O.Ps. There are certain instances with regard to the harassment caused by the petitioner/accused to the 2nd respondent with illegal demand for dowry, both physically and mentally and as such, the matter requires trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. Further, he would submit that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner/accused that there are no allegations against him with regard to the commission of offences.