IMPORTANT POINT
In matrimonial disputes, vague allegations against relatives cannot sustain criminal charges; specific evidence is required to proceed.

ORDER :

1. The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[in short “Cr.P.C.”] has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.1794 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[in short “Cr.P.C.”].

2. The factual background leading to the filing of the Petition:

a. As per the averments made in the chargesheet, the marriage of the de facto complainant and the Accused No.1 was performed on 30.11.2018. After their marriage, Accused No.1 did not take the complainant to the marital house to lead conjugal life and made her to stay at her parents’ house. Accused No.1 switched off his cell phone and avoided contact with the complainant

b. It is stated further that the de facto complainant made enquiries at the work place of Accused No.1 and learnt that he quit the job. On enquiring her father–in-law, he replied that Accused No.1 left to Delhi for coaching. Later, she came to Ongole i.e., her husband’s place and came to know that they have changed their house to elsewhere.

c. It is averred that after coming to know their address, the de facto complainant went to her in-laws and questioned their behaviour, all the accused informed her that they are going to perform another marriage to Accused No.1 and necked her out of the marital house. A scuffle took place, in which, her brother-in-law beat her.

d. On 26.12.2018 complainant presented a report in police station. Basing on it, a case was registered which culminated into C.C. No.1794 of 2021.

e. Accused No.1 is the husband, whereas Accused Nos., 2 to 4 are parents-in law and brother-in law of the de facto complainant. Seeking quashment of the C.C., the present petition is filed.

f. Hence, Crl.P.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Sri A. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Sai Manoj Reddy, learned counsel representing Indus Law Firm appearing for Respondent No.2. Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/ Respondent No.1 is in attendance.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 fairly conceded that there are no ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are the parents and brother of the husband/Accused No.1.

5. To this, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that against Accused No.1 also, there are no ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is submitted that the entire incident alleged to have happened at Ongole, but the case is transferred to Vijayawada by an endorsement of the Commissioner’s Office. Learned counsel further would submit that learned Magistrate without applying the judicial mind, took cognizance of the offence against Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and the order of cognizance itself is non est under law. Learned counsel finally submits that no case is made out prima facie against the Petitioner No.1 also i.e., Accused No.1.

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that against Accused No.1, there are clear ingredients to attract the offence since as per the contents of the complaint and the material on record, Accused No.1 left the wife immediately after the marriage and made her to go around, which is nothing but subjecting a woman to mental cruelty. It is also submitted that the contentions raised in the present petition are a matter of trial. Ultimately, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petition of the Accused No.1.

Point for Determination

7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, point for determination that arises in this case is as follows:

Whether the case against the Petitioners/Accused No