Proceedings under Section 498-A IPC can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the charges against distant relatives of the husband are vague, omnibus in nature, and lack specific allegations of cruelty, thereby constituting an abuse of judicial process.

The Court made the following ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.113 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, Kurnool district, against the petitioners herein/A4 and A5.

2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners herein/A4 and A5 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A , 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is alleged that the marriage between the de facto complainant and son of A1 namely Chandra Sekhar, was performed in the year 2008, and at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.75,000/-, 225 Grams of gold and 2 ½ Kgs Silver were given as dowry. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a male child. Subsequently, due to unbearable harassment made by her husband at the instigation of her in-laws, the de facto complainant went to her parental house in the year 2012 and started residing therein. While so, in the year 2019, husband of the de facto complainant died. Thereafter, A1 to A7 are alleged to have assured the de facto complainant to return the dowry amount and articles as well as share of her husband in the property, but in vain. When the de facto complainant, along with other witnesses, went to the house of her in-laws and demanded the dowry articles and her husband’s share in the property, the accused abused them in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. On 19.03.2021, basing on the report of the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.93 of 2021 of Jupadu Bungalow Police Station is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file as CC No.113 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A4 and A5 submits that the petitioners/A4 and A5 are residing separately and they are no way connected with the matrimonial life of the de facto complainant. He submits that the de facto complainant foisted the above case against the petitioners herein and others with a view to harass them on the ground that her husband’s share in the property was not given to her. He further submits that except making omnibus allegations, no specific accusations have been made against the petitioners/A4 and A5 that they are alleged to have harassed the de facto complainant and that there is no material to connect the petitioners/A4 and A5 to the alleged crime.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that after the death of her husband when the de facto complainant along with others (LWs.2 to 5) went to her in-laws’ house and demanded for return of dowry articles and her husband’s share in the property, the accused abused them in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences, and disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the present proceedings.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court