Criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes should be quashed if allegations against family members are vague and omnibus, lacking specific overt acts, as implicating relatives without concrete evidence constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

ORDER

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in C.C.No.754 of 2023 (Crime No.72 of 2022 of Disha Women Police Station, Ongole) on the file of the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate at Ongole, Prakasham District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 489-A , 323, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘theAct’).

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.754 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, constitutes a manifest abuse of process of law. The allegations levelled by the Respondent No.2 are demonstrably vague, bereft of particulars, and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Even if the complaint is taken at its face value, the averments therein do not prima facie constitute the offences under the penal provisions invoked. The imputations are general, omnibus, and devoid of any specific overt act attributable to the Petitioners, thereby failing to satisfy the threshold requirement for criminal prosecution. It is a settled proposition of law that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue when the allegations are inherently improbable, mala fide, and instituted only with an oblique motive to harass the accused persons.

Furthermore, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the institution and continuance of the present proceedings against Petitioners amounts to sheer harassment. The allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and intimidation are not supported by any cogent material, and the charge sheet is founded upon conjectures and surmises rather than substantive evidence. The respondent-wife’s conduct, as borne out from the record, reveals incompatibility and discord rather than any criminal culpability on the part of the petitioners. In the absence of any specific, credible, or legally sustainable accusation, the continuation of the proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is urged to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.754 of 2023, thereby securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of Court.

Per contra, Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and learned Counsel for respondent No.2, submit that the allegations contained in the complaint are not only grave but are supported by specific, cogent, and detailed averments which clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The complainant has meticulously narrated the acts of cruelty, dowry demands, misappropriation of ornaments, coercion regarding immovable property, and threats to her life and liberty, all of which demonstrate a continuous course of harassment and unlawful conduct by the accused persons acting in concert. The factual substratum, including monetary transfers, negotiations before elders, and threats communicated through electronic messages, establishes prima facie culpability and cannot be brushed aside as vague or omnibus. In such circumstances, the charge sheet represents a legitimate invocation of criminal jurisdiction, and the Petitioners’ attempt to seek quashment is nothing but an endeavour to stifle a genuine prosecution. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition and permit the trial to proceed in accordance with law.

In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the record. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.754/2023