Vague and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes do not justify criminal proceedings against relatives; specific accusations are necessary to avoid misuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

(V. SUJATHA, J.)

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in FIR No.220 of 2019 on the file of Inaguduru Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A , 420, 494 , 506 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act .

2. The petitioner in this case is accused No.7. The respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant filed a complaint stating that her marriage with accused No.7 took place on 05.06.2015. At the time of the marriage, on the demand of accused No.7 and others, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, accused No.1 and the complainant resided together at the in-laws' house in Gunadala, Vijayawada and lead a happy marital life for six months. Later, accused No.1 got addicted to bad vices and harassed the defacto-complainant to bring additional dowry, along with other accused persons. In August, 2018, the defacto-complainant came to know that marriage of accused No.1 was performed with one Parvathi in the year 2013 and blessed with one daughter. The defacto-complainant requested to take necessary action against the accused No.1, who cheated without informing about the accused No.1‟s first marriage and his demand to bring additional dowry. On the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.220 of 2019 has been registered on the file of Inaguduru Police Station.

4. The petitioner who is accused No.7, filed the present petition stating that he is neither a family member nor a relative of accused No.1, and he has no connection with the crime in question. The petitioner has only attended the wedding of accused No.1 and de facto complainant, but had never met the complainant or the accused persons. Therefore, he is not involved in the crime, except for his knowledge that the marriage between accused No.1 and Parvathi took place in the 2013, which was registered at the Marriage Registration Office, and they were blessed with a child. In light of the above, prays to allow the petition.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.7 is that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and that the allegations made against the petitioner do not attract the alleged offences and a case was registered based on the vague allegations to implicate the petitioner in the case. The learned counsel would further submit that the allegations made in the FIR do not make out a case against the petitioner and it is unfair to compel the petitioner to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial in the absence of any offences against him.

6. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against petitioner. He would submit that the allegations made against the petitioner would squarely attract the offence alleged against him and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.7 in Crime No.220 of 2019 on the file of Inaguduru Police Station, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”

8. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 o