APHC010703932022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10427/2022 Between:

BankaapuriKoteswara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. THANDAVA YOGESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10427/2022

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 & 5, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in CC.No.754 of 2022 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur.

2. Heard Sri T.Yogesh, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Notice is served on the respondent No.2. Though the respondent No.2 entered appearance through their Advocate, Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, there is no representation for the respondent No.2. Heard Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that except omnibus allegations made against the petitioners, nothing is attributed in specific whether to attract Section 498-A or Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioners are the father and brother of A-1 who is the husband of the respondent No.2 i.e., the defacto complainant. Learned Counsel would further submit that the information which was given to the Police for registration of Crime itself shows that A1 and the respondent No.2 put up separate family. Even then, the husband continued the harassment against the wife. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners only on the allegations that at their instigation, A1 has harassed his wife for additional dowry is mere abuse of process of law. Learned counsel finally prays for quashment of the case against the petitioners.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that court may pass appropriate orders, since no specific allegations are made against the petitioners.

Determination by the Court:

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. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v.

State of Bihar¹, held as follows:

“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceed