Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Maruvada Lakshmi And Another vs State Of Uttar on 14 June, 2023
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4894 of 2021
Between:-
Maruvada Lakshmi and another .... Petitioners
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh.,
Rep.by its Public Prosecutor & another .... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms.M.L.Neelima
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Assistant Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Ms.Y.Anupama Devi
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4477 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, wherein the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4.
3. The petitioners are facing trial for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354-A(2), 509 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The 1st petitioner herein/accused No.3 is the mother of accused No.1 and wife of accused No.2. The 2nd petitioner herein/accused No.4 is the sister of accused No.1. The 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint against her husband/accused 2 No.1, his father in law/accused No.2 and the petitioners herein, wherein it was stated that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 01.07.2018 at Hotel Green Park, Visakhapatnam and at the time of marriage, Rs.20,00,000/- was given along with gold worth Rs.20 Lakhs apart from silver and gold articles. It was alleged that she stayed with her husband/A1 for few days at Hyderabad and later set up their marital home at Bangalore and during their stay at Bangalore, she was subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically for additional dowry etc., and that her father-in-law used to behave inappropriately with her. It was further alleged that the petitioners herein used to ask the 2nd respondent to do all the household chores and blame that she is not capable of doing properly even before the task is completed and hurl abuses touching 2nd respondent's sentiments and curse her parents for no reason, that the accused used to abuse her in un-parliamentary language and raise demand for additional dowry and unceremoniously necked her out. The police after investigation filed a Charge Sheet against the accused including the petitioners herein, the cognizance of which was taken by the learned Magistrate in the proceedings under challenge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in the crime. She submits that except making vague and omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners herein, which would attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The learned counsel while 3 placing a copy of the order passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in F.C.O.P.No.96 of 2020 dated 29.03.2022 submits that a decree for divorce is granted dissolving the marriage of the 2nd respondent with her husband/accused No.1 and the 2nd respondent is no longer interested in pursuing the proceedings which are sought to be quashed. She also places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Geeta Mehrotra & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another1 and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.2, and seeks to allow the petition as prayed for.
5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the serious nature of the allegations, it is a matter for trial and there are no merits warranting interference in the matter by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent while supporting the contentions advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As seen from the complaint and the Charge Sheet, the allegations which are serious in nature have been made against the accused Nos.1 and 2, but so far as the other accused/petitioners herein are concerned, no specific overtacts have been attributed to them and on the basis of vague allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that no 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741 2 AIR 2022 Supreme Court 820 4 case can be made out against them for the offences under Sections 498-A, and 354-A and 509 of IPC, would in any way not applicable to them.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra referred to supra, inter alia, held as follows:-
"....It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."
(Para 25)
9. In a recent decision in Kahkashan Kausar referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the legal position in Geeta Mehrotra, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was pleased to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants therein, inter alia, holding that it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a Trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo Trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also pleased to make certain observations to the effect that "general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of Law".
5
10. In the light of the above stated legal position, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners' merits acceptance.
11. Further the counsel for the 2nd respondent had not disputed about the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court referred to supra. Though, it would appear that the de facto complainant remained exparte in the said case, no material is placed to show that steps have been taken against the said order. Be that as it may, in view of the factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any specific overtacts, ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.3 and 4 would not be attracted and no case can be made out against them. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of Law.
12. In such view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.4477 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, insofar as petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 14.06.2023 BLV 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Crl.P.No.4894 of 2021 Date: 14.06.2023 BLV