In matrimonial disputes, vague allegations against relatives cannot sustain charges under IPC; specific evidence of instigation or aid is required for abetment of suicide.

ORDER :

(VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.)

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 & 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in PRC No.24 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District for the offences punishable under Sections 498A & 306 r/w 34 ofIPC .

2. Heard Sri N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.B.V Ravi Kumar, 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 and A3. A2 is the sister of A1. A3 is the husband of A2. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners herein are not staying under same roof with A1 and the deceased. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners are working as Government Teachers. It is alleged against the petitioners that A2 and A3 used to encourage A1 to harass the wife of A1. A1 used to hear the words of A2 and A3. Learned Counsel would further submit that there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners with reference to any incident. They have nothing to do with the present case and continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit in this matter. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the deceased committed suicide at the house of her husband. One year preceding to the incident, Mother of A1 died. Since then, the petitioners/A2 and A3 are residing nearby place to the house of A1. There are specific allegations made against the petitioners as can be seen from the 164 Statement of the complainant. The Complainant is the mother of the deceased.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the respondent No.2 and vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition.

6. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners would reiterate his argument by saying that A2 and A3 are Government Servants and they have never resided under the same roof along with A1 and the deceased. The complaint would show that after A1 left the house, the deceased committed suicide. The presence of the petitioners at the time of the incident is completely ruled out. Even on the face of it, all the allegations that after the death of their mother, A2 and A3 used to stay near to the house of A1 is true, it does not automatically support the version that they have harassed the deceased.

Determination by the Court

7. 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 jurisprudence.

8. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 held as follows:

“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a tria