Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22029
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Sujatha, J
B Chalapathi Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of Ap – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2970/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B M Patro
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (AP)
Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to quash criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband in dowry disputes where the complaint lacks specific allegations and relies solely on omnibus, general averments that do not constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Quashment of proceedings - High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process of law - Omnibus and general allegations against in-laws without specific roles - Necessity to protect relatives from mechanical implication in matrimonial disputes.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners (Accused 1-4) filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings in C.C.No.147 of 2017 for offences under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The marriage occurred on 05.11.2016, and the complainant alleged physical and mental harassment for additional dowry after the marriage.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while there were specific allegations against the husband (A1), the allegations against the other family members (A2-A4) were vague, general, and omnibus in nature, failing to satisfy the definition of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
Issues: Whether there were justifiable grounds for the quashment of proceedings against Accused 2-4 under the court's inherent jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process. Where there are no specific roles attributed to relatives of the husband, forcing them to face trial based on omnibus allegations constitutes an abuse of process and a travesty of justice.
Result: Petition allowed in part; proceedings quashed against Accused 2-4, dismissed against Accused 1.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition for quashing fir for dowry harassment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions by the parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's legal reasoning on inherent powers for quashment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. final order granting partial quashment of criminal proceedings. (Para 16) |
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant criminal 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 4, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.147 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palasa, Srikakulam District, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘D.P.Act).
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(i) Respondent No.2 herein is the defacto complainant. Accused No.1 is the husband, Accused No.2 is mother-in-law, Accused No.3 is cousin and Accused No.4 is sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent.
(ii) The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 05.11.2016. At the time of marriage, parents of the respondent No.2 gave cash of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and also presented 1½ thula of gold to the petitioner No.1. After the marriage, petitioner No.1 took respondent No.2 to Bhilai and lead their marital life happily for some time. Later, Accused Nos.1 to 4 started harassing respondent No.2 both physically and mentally for additional dowry.
(iii) Basing on the report given by respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.29 of 2017 under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act was registered.
3. Heard Mr.B.M.Patro, learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 and perused the entire material available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 would submit that the allegations made in the complaint are false and created for the purpose to make out a case against the petitioners. There are no specific allegations attributed against them either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after lodging a criminal complaint against the petitioners under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, respondent No.2 also filed M.C.No.5 of 2017 seeking interim maintenance. Similarly, petitioner No.1 filed an application under Section 13(1)(1-A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage in the Family Court at Durg, Chattishgad State and also filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C against respondent No.2 and all the cases are pending against them. He also submits that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has not yet been consummated. The petitioners also filed the chatting messages run continuously between the complainant and her paramour to establish that she has no interest in petitioner No.1 and only to harass the petitioners, the present case has been lodged. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the same.
5. Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The truth, or otherwise, of the said allegations will be revealed during the course of the trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.147 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial First class Magistrate, Palasa, Srikakulam District for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act?
7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear
