General and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes without specific instances do not justify criminal proceedings, highlighting the need to prevent abuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 to 9, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C No. 1640 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Guntur, Guntur District.

2. Heard Sri M.V.Raja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri C.Narendra Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are A2 to A9. A2 and A3 are mother and father of A1. A4 is Brother’s wife of A1. A5 and A6 are sister of A1 and her husband respectively. A7 to A9 are mother, father and brother of A4 respectively. Learned counsel would submit that A7 to A9 are not family members of A1. They are parents and brother of A4. The petitioners have nothing to do with the case. Accused No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. He has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. A1 also filed a petition under Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of the child. A5 and A9 are pursuing their studies. A6 is the husband of the sister of A1, who is working at State Bank of India, Khammam. Learned counsel would submit that without any preliminary enquiry, the case has been lodged against all the family members of the husband as an arm-twist to settle their scores. Learned counsel would submit that report which was presented to the Police by the complainant does not contain any allegations against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 498A of IPC or Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners have never visited the place of the respondent No.2 and stayed under one roof along with the respondent No.2 and A1. The allegations made against the petitioners are vague and omnibus in nature. Learned counsel finally submits that the Police did not make proper investigation and simply filed charge sheet against all the petitioners. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in a casual way without application of Judicial mind. Learned counsel finally submits that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners/A2, A3 and A4. Learned counsel would further submit that complaint would show that A1 developed objectionable relation with A4 who is his brother’s wife due to which the disputes arose between the couple. Learned counsel would further submit that when the complainant questioned the illegal acts of the husband, the parents and brother of A4 also intervened and respondent No.2 and her parents were beaten by them. Learned counsel would further submit that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against all the petitioners and it is not a fit case for quashment.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the respondent No.2 and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

Determination by the Court

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jur