Mogili Sesha Sai v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., Nunna P.S., Vijayawada, Krishna District

the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 751 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble Additional Judicial 1®* Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District. I.A, NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition Section 482 Cr.P.C praying circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in proceedings in C.C. No. 751 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble Additional Judicial 1 St Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Ravi Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K Sarva Bhouma Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER : / ^ APHC010127032022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2195/2022 Between: MogiliSesha Sai and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S):

1.N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complalnant(S):

1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER; The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/A1 to A5 in C.C.No.751 of 2020 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, seeking quashment of the case against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 r/w 34 of I PC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act. > j I 2 ■1 VJPj, CRLP.No.2195/2022 \

2. Heard Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. SarvaBhoumaRao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are Accused Nos. 1 to 5. Accused No.1 is the husband and accused Nos. 2 to 5 are family members of the husband. Learned counsel would further submit that the marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 took place on

05.10.2017 and out of wedlock, they were blessed with a baby boy. The complaint would show that the Accused No.1 is working as Software Engineer in Hyderabad after the marriage.Learned counsel would submit that all the allegations are made against the Accused No.1. The allegations made against the accused Nos. 2 to 5 are omnibus to the effect that on 19.01.2020, at Bapatia, that accused No.1 came to the house in a drunken condition and picking up quarrel with her. She called her parents, then, the accused Nos. 2 to 5 beat her and threw her away from their house. Learned counsel would further submit that the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 19.01.2020 but report was given on 01.11.2020. These allegations are not even supported by any medical evidence. None of the witnesses spoke about dowry harassment against the accused Nos. 2 to 5. The charge sheet shows that no witnesses from the vicinity of the accused were examined. Learned counsel / ; 3 VJPJ, CRLP.No.2195/2022 would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the demand of dowry is very much present against all the accused. She was driven away from the house. “Hurt” necessary does not mean injury. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that it is a matter of trial and not a fit case for quashment.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the arguments of the respondent No.2. 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 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. 4 1 \''s' VjPj CRLP.No.2195/2022

7. 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 Bihar\ held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over 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 proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prime facie case is made out against them.

22. Therefore, consideration relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of i.e.. general and omnibus allegations trial, a cannot manifest in of the relatives complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instance that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acguittal also inflicts upon the accused, and such discouraged. severe scars an exercise must therefore be situation a ' ' - (emphasis supplied)

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 5 VJPJ, CRLP.No.2195/2022 another^, highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows; “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. ”

9. In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another^, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows;: (emphasis supplied) “The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts ^ 2024 INSC 369 ^2024 INSC 896 6 > --V' CRLP.No.2195/2022 cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions. ’’

10. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and Another"*, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:: (emphasis supplied) “31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 1 see 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by respondent No. 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lai. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to It under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants. ” ^2024 INSC 953 (emphasis supplied) r 7 VJPJ, CRLP.No.2195/2022

12. To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no or whisper of allegations present In the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations.

13. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the statement of the defacto complainant basing on which the FIR is registered would show that all the allegations are made against the Accused No.1. It further shows that on 19.01.2020 at about 8:00 PM, at Bapatia, when accused No.1 came to the house in drunken condition and picked up quarrel with the complainant and when she was informing the same to her parents over phone. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 who are sister in law, mother in law, father in law and Maternal / uncle of accused No.1 picked up quarrel with her and beat her. Then, she left for her parents’ house. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the alleged incident dated 19.01.2020 is reported on 01.11.2020, which is not supported by any medical evidence. Needless to say, every hurt need not be accompanied by a medical certificate but coming to the facts of the present case, respondent No.2 is giving complaint against the family members of the husband referring to an incident which is alleged to have been taken place on

19.01.2020. Furthermore, the allegations made against the accused Nos. 2 to 5 are omnibus and no specific attributions are made against accused Nos. 2 1 i 8 Vjpj CRLP.No.2195/2022 to 5 to understand their role. In the backdrop of the legal position referred to supra, in absence of specific allegations against the family members of the husband, continuing criminal proceedings against them is mere abuse of process of law. It can be concluded that only as an arm twist, the family members of the husband are included in the criminal case. However, stated since there are allegations on Accused No.1, it is not tenable to quash the crime as against him.

14. In the result, the petition is partly allowed, quashing the case against in C.C.No.751 of 2020 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki qua Accused Nos. 2 to 5 alone. The Criminal Petition for the petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is dismissed. 1 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.CHITTE JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Additional Judicial 1"* Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District.

2. The Station House Officer, Nunna Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ;■

3. The Station House Officer, J. Panguluru Police Station, Prakasam District.

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri N Ravi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC

6. One CC to Sri K Sarva Bhouma Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

7. Three CD Copies TK TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 18/12/2024 'V \ . \ \ \ ORDER CRLP.No.2195 of 2022 Of= and/^ g 2 0 JAN 2025 ^ Current Section ^ 1 Co ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION IN PART I