In matrimonial disputes, vague allegations against family members without specific details cannot justify prosecution, as it risks abuse of legal processes.

ORDER :

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.

The instant petition under Section 4 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.1243 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for the offence punishable under Section 4 98-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, [for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, [for short ‘DP Act’]

2. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Rachuri Lakshmikar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are the parents-in-law of Respondent No.2 and there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that, Accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.1176 of 2023 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam attributing illicit relationship of Respondent No.2 with her cousin and after receiving summons therein, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint with bald and omnibus allegations. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same.

4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences and the same has to be proved during trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. 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.

6. It is alleged in the complaint that, the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 had taken place on 14.05.2021. At the time of marriage, there was exchange of dowry of Rs.21,50,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing bike, Rs.3,00,000/- towards sare saman, 20 tulas of gold and 3 kgs of silver articles. After three months of the marriage, Accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing Respondent No.2 demanding additional dowry of Rs.50.00 lakhs and subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty. In January, 2022, Respondent No.2 was sent to her parental home on the eve of the marriage of her brother and thereafter, she was not taken to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, at the intervention of elders, she was sent to matrimonial home in February, 2023, however, there was no change in the attitude of Accused No.1 and the Petitioners herein. As such, she lodged the present complaint.

7. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others Vs. State of Telangana and another , [2024 INSC 953] the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“21. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No.1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with appellant No.1. However, she again lef