The court quashed proceedings against the accused under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, finding no prima facie case and emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of legal processes.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short 'Cr.P.C'] has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 7, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No. 125 of 2021, on the file of Korukonda Police Station, Rajahmundry Urban registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code[for short 'IPC'] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act[for short 'the Act'].

2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition are:

a. The marriage of Respondent No. 2 was performed with Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1 on 06.11.2004. At the time of marriage, on demand of the mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and two sovereigns of gold were given towards dowry. After some period, all the accused started harassing Respondent No. 2 demanding additional dowry. Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1 at the instigation of his sisters i.e., Petitioners 2 to 7/Accused Nos. 2 to 7 used to harass her to bring additional dowry. Unable to bear with their harassment, Respondent No. 2 went to her parental home. Though the matter was placed before elders for compromise, they did not heed to their words. Hence, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with Korukonda Police which was registered as a case in Crime No. 125 of 2021.

b. The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the above crime against the petitioners.

3. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. None represented for Respondent No. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the present complaint was filed with a mala fide intention by suppressing the facts, to harass the petitioners. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 willfully left the matrimonial home and has been living at her parental home. He would also submit that as Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1 refused to join her as illatom son-in-law, the present complaint was filed. It is further submitted that the marriages of Petitioner Nos., 2 to 7 were already performed and they have been living with their families and they never lived along with the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. He would finally submit that the allegations in the complaint are vague and do not disclose the alleged offence and hence he prays this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the criminal petition. She would submit that there is no merit in the contention of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.,1 to 7 that there are no allegations against them about the commission of the offence. Therefore, she would pray to dismiss the criminal petition.

Point for Determination

6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings in Crime No. 125 of 2021 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498- A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?

Determination by the Court

7. Section 482 powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Sec