Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
Kanakala Syamsundara Rao and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Kantubhukta Kanakala Sandhya Rani and Others – Respondents
Criminal Petition No: 605/2021
Decided On : 07-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: G U R C Prasad
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that vague allegations without specific details, especially in light of evidence of the respondent's adulterous conduct, do not support a domestic violence claim.
Headnote:
Quashment - Domestic Violence - Section 482 Cr.P.C - The court interpreted Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings based on the absence of specific allegations of domestic violence and the presence of evidence indicating the respondent's adulterous conduct, which undermined the claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash domestic violence proceedings initiated by the respondent, who alleged harassment and demands for dowry. The petitioners contended that the respondent was leading an adulterous life and was not residing with them, thus negating the applicability of domestic violence provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's allegations were vague and lacked specificity. It noted that the respondent had suppressed material facts regarding her relationship with another individual, which influenced the court's decision to quash the proceedings.
Issues: Whether there are justifiable grounds for quashing the domestic violence proceedings against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process and that the absence of specific allegations of domestic violence, coupled with evidence of the respondent's adulterous conduct, warranted quashing the proceedings.
Result: The proceedings against the petitioners in D.V.C.No.7 of 2020 are quashed.
ORDER :
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Respondents seeking quashment of proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, Vizianagaram District.
2. Petitioner No.1 herein is the husband and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of Respondent No.1 herein and Petitioner No.4 herein is the nephew of Petitioner No.1.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
a. Marriage of Petitioner No.1 with Respondent No.1 was performed on 21.05.2014. At the time of marriage, as per the demands of the Petitioners herein, the mother of Respondent No.1 paid dowry of Rs.12,00,000/-, sare saman worth Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.80,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam, Rs.1,50,000/- towards marriage expenses to the Petitioner Nos., 1 to 3 herein and also presented a bracelet weighing 3 ½ tulas, three gold rings weighing 25 grams to Petitioner No.1 herein and 5 tulas of gold to Respondent No.1 herein.
b. The marriage was consummated and during wedlock Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 herein were blessed with two children i.e., Respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein. Few days thereafter, Petitioner No.1 herein started harassing the Respondent No.1 herein both physically and mentally by demanding to bring Rs.5,00,000/- from her mother to invest in a business. With the said amount, they started a firm under the name and style of Star Engineering and Logistic Services at Visakhapatnam and within two years they started another firm under the name and style of M/s.S.S.C.Marine Services, Visakhapatnam.
c. Respondent No.1 joined as a partner along with one Poosarla Vasavi in the said firms. Even at time of her pregnancy also, Petitioner No.1 herein used to harass Respondent No.1 herein both physically and mentally. She bore the torture with a fond hope that there would be a change in the attitude of Petitioner No.1, but in vain. After the birth of Respondent No.2 herein, Petitioner No.1 again demanded an additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same was also paid by the mother of Respondent No.1.
d. With the profits in business, Respondent No.1 purchased a site at Murali Nagar under a Registered Sale Deed dated 25.02.2016 for which mother of Respondent No.1 also contributed an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and the said site was registered in the names of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 herein.
e. From 2017, Petitioner Nos., 2 to 4 also started harassing her by instigation of the Petitioner No.1. They all used to demand to transfer the interest and rights of Respondent No.1 in the business and the site purchased by her for which, she did not agree. They used to threaten Respondent No.1 with dire consequences and that they will cause disappearance of Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
f. Finally, on their demand, Respondent No.1 permitted Petitioner No.4 to look after the business and she left to Arikathota Village and used to reside with Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein till 28.12.2019. Unbearable with the harassment of Petitioners herein, Respondent No.1 came to her mother’s house at Salur. While so, on 04.01.2020, Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 herein came to Respondent No.1 and obtained her signatures on stamp papers and blank papers forcibly and created an agreement for divorce.
g. In the meanwhile, on 30.12.2019 Petitioner No.1 herein forced her to sign on papers before an Advocate. The efforts made by the elders to settle the matter proved futile. Petitioner No.1 herein also had taken away all the gold ornaments of Respondent No.1.
h. On 26.01.2020, Petitioner No.1 herein came to Respondent No.1, had taken away Respondent No.3 herein and all the Petitioners used to demand her to agree for their terms, else, they would put an end to the life of Respondent No.3 herein.
i. Petitioner No.1 is now looking after the business and getting income not less than Rs.1,00,000 /- per month. Petitioners 1 and 3 hav
