General and vague allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes do not justify criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

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 4 seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.52 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Bapatla for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Saranu Phani Teja, 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 mother, married sister and disabled brother of the Accused No.1. Accused No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2 who is the defacto complainant in this case. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 after marriage stayed with the family of the Accused No.1 only for twenty (20) days. Thereafter, they put up separate family at Chinaganjam. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners i.e., Accused Nos. 3 and 4 who are married sister and disabled brother of the husband, they have nothing to do with the family affairs of Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and they have never interfered in their family affairs. Accused No.1 is a physiotherapist and he is a dwarf. There are no specific allegations made against the petitioners to continue the criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused No.4 is a physically disabled person, except bald and ominous allegations nothing is alleged against the petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the marriage between Accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 took place on 15.07.2015 at Perala. Within one month of marriage, the couple put up separate family at Chinagangam. The contention of the respondent No.2 is that she was necked out from the house on 05.09.2019. The petitioners never stayed with the respondent No.2 under one roof at the relevant point of time. Learned counsel finally prays for quashment of the case against the petitioners stating that it is a sheer abuse of process of law to continue criminal proceedings against them.

4. In support of their contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgments in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar¹, Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another, [2024 INSC 369] and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, [(2010) 7 SCC 667]

5. Contrasting the same, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners to prima facie attract the offences punishable under Sections 498A IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. This court cannot quash the case against the petitioners in the light of the clear allegations made against them. Accused No.1 and his family members have been harassing the respondent No.2 for the sake of additional dowry from the inception of the marriage. Such being the case, quashment of the case against the petitioners is not permissible for the offences under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

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 functioni