Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Magistrate Of First Class For ... vs Ch.Bhajanlal And Ors.4 on 8 August, 2023
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7544 of 2022, 1323 of
2023, 1326 of 2023 and 2492 of 2023
COMMON ORDER :
These Criminal Petitions, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are filed by various accused in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur, seeking to quash the said proceedings as against them. Petitioners in Criminal Petition No.7544 of 2022 are A.4 and A.6; the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1323 of 2023 is A.5; petitioners in Criminal Petition No.1326 of 2023 are A.2 and A.3 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2492 of 2023 is A.1, in the aforesaid P.R.C.
2. On the strength of a report lodged by 2nd respondent, who is father of victim girl B.Jaswanthi, a case in crime No. 605 of 2021 of Pattabhipuram police station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 506, 420 IPC and 3 and 4 of the 2 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and after completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against A.1 to A.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 506, 420, 406 read with 34 IPC and 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations in the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows.
Marriage of A.1 was performed with the victim B.Jaswanthi in the presence of elders on 25.02.2015. Her parents gave 1.12 Kgs of gold jewellery, 4 Kg silver, 500 square yards of land worth Rs.2.50 crores towards pasupu-kumkum and gave an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs to A.1 towards dowry, as demanded by A.1 to A.6. At the time of marriage, the victim requested A.1 to A.5 for continuing her further studies and the latter accepted it. After the marriage, she joined A.1 to lead conjugal life at Vitamurajupalli village, Vinukonda mandal, Guntur district. Her parents allowed her to take her gold ornaments to U.S.A., but she informed them that A.2 to A.5 did not accept to take the gold ornaments to U.S.A. and hence she left her gold ornaments with A.2, A.3 and 3 A.5 and went to U.S.A. It is alleged that since then, A.2 to A.5 used to abuse her with the support of A.1. A.1 warned her to do as per the wishes of A.4 and A.5. Soon after she got her H4 Visa, A.1 took her to U.S.A. Later, in the year 2017, her parents went to U.S.A. and stayed there for three months in the house of A.1 and their daughter. A.1, A.4 to A.6 increased harassment towards her without any reasons. The same was informed to her parents (L.Ws.1 and 7) and brother (L.W.8), for which her parents informed her that such type of things are common in conjugal life and advised her to adjust with A.1, A.4 to A.6.
Prior to marriage, A.1 to A.6 alleged to have accepted her for continuing her further studies in U.S.A. When they reached U.S.A., A.1 did not accept her request to continue her further studies. At a later point of time, A.1 accepted her to join in Oklahoma University to study M.S. (Master) course, but he did not pay the University fee and hence she joined a part time job to per her fee. Because of her joining in Oklahoma University, 4 A.1 stopped his job and joined in Dallas (TX) for job to harass her and also changed their residence, and at that time, A.1 stayed in the house of A.4. In the year 2017, she completed her M.S. and informed her brother (L.W.8) that she joined in a job. A.1 came to Dallas and imposed a condition that she should live near house of A.4. A.4 used to harass her both mentally and physically and A.1 used to harass her at the instigation of A.4. The same was informed by her to her parents (L.Ws.1 and 7) and brother (L.W.8). Since the date of marriage, she did not lead her conjugal life happily with A.1. She informed her brother (L.W.8) that it is very hard to stay at Dallas due to unbearable harassment of A.1 and the harassment, both physically and mentally, over phone by A.4 and A.5.
In September, 2019, A.2 made a phone call and informed that he fell ill and requested A.1 and the victim to come to India immediately. At that time, she got an offer for a permanent job, however, she came to India along with A.1 and stayed in Lakshmi Apartments, 5 Vijayawada, where A.1 picked up a quarrel with her and beat her. On 17.11.2019, A.1 picked up a quarrel with her on the pretext that some others were ready to give Rs.2.00 crores towards dowry and marry him and attempted to kill her by throttling with chunni and tied to her neck. But, she could not inform the same either to her parents or brother. Later, A.1 took her passport and left her at her parents and planned to leave India for USA. On negotiations, A.1 accepted to take her to U.S.A. Since her passport was not renewed and Visa was also expired, in the month of January, 2020, her brother (L.W.8) arranged Visa to her to go to USA, and she went to U.S.A. But, at that time, A.1 harassed her by not allowing her into house. A.1 demanded her to bring additional dowry otherwise threatened to kill her. During that time, her parents gave an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs to A.1. A.1 to A.3 forcibly took her mobile phone password and got transferred an amount of USD 80,000 to his account from her savings. Thereafter, she became pregnant and when A.1 to A.6 6 came to know that she would give birth to a girl child, A.1 decided to leave for USA with her passport and other documents, as they did not like her to give birth to a girl child, all the accused harassed her both physically and mentally without giving food and confining her in a room. She gave birth to a girl child on 07.10.2021. But, A.1 or his relatives did not pay hospital bills and 2nd respondent paid the same. A.1 to A.6 tried to take additional dowry by blackmailing her parents.
3. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that omnibus accusations have been made as against all the accused and no specific overt-act has been attributed to any of the accused; that 7 the alleged accusations that have been made as against the petitioners herein are said to have occurred in U.S.A.; that a complaint has been filed without there being any jurisdiction to try the offences. Learned senior counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no mention of date or time as to when the said incident is said to have taken place, and the present complaint has been filed only with a view to harass the petitioners when a perusal of the statements of witnesses or allegations in the charge sheet do not disclose any acts of harassment said to have been committed by the petitioners in India. He further submits that in view of the above, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing abuse of process of Court and prays to quash the same.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for 2nd respondent contended that the present quash petitions are not maintainable for the reason that earlier the petitioners herein filed a quash petition and the same was dismissed on merits by this Court, and thereafter, 8 once again, the present quash petitions are filed to quash the self-same proceedings as against the petitioners herein, and the second quash petition is not maintainable on the very same grounds.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that on a perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet would go to show that there are specific accusations that have been made as against the petitioners herein; that the petitioners herein demanded an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs to be paid to A.1. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that the other accused are alleged to have harassed the victim with the support of A.1, and since specific allegations are made as against the petitioners herein and as the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for appearing for petitioners are disputed questions of fact, the learned senior counsel prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.
6. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent supported 9 the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for 2nd respondent. According to him, specific accusations have been made as against the petitioners herein, and truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided during the course of trial. He relied on a decision in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab & others1.
7. In reply, the learned senior counsel Sri K.Chidambaram submitted that he was not aware of the fact that earlier a petition was filed to quash the proceedings in crime No. 605 of 2021 of Pattabhipuram police station. He submits that entire investigation is over and police filed charge sheet in the said crime. According to him, there is change in circumstances as the police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. He submits that second quash petition is maintainable and relied on a decision in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh and others2.
1 (2020) 3 SCC 317 2 MANU/SC/0223/1974 = (1975) 3 SCC 706 10 A perusal of the said judgment goes to show that the main question that was debated was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to make order dated 07.04.1970, quashing the proceedings against respondents 1, 2 and 3, when on an earlier application made by 1st respondent, the High Court had, by its Order dated 12.12.1968, refused to quash the proceeding. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the earlier application, which was rejected by the High Court, is an application under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 to quash the proceedings and the High Court rejected it on the ground that evidence had let in and it was not desirable to interfere with the proceedings at that stage. Thereafter, the criminal case was dragged on for a period of 1 ½ years without there being any progress at all and it was in those circumstances, the respondents were constrained to file an application under Section 561A CrPC, 1898 to quash the proceedings. In the said decision, it is held as under: 11
"It is difficult to see as to how in these circumstances, it could ever be contended that what the High Court was being asked to do by making the subsequent application was to review or revise the Order made by it on the earlier application. Section 561A preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such Orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must, therefore, exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The High Court was in the circumstances entitled to entertain the subsequent application of Respondents Nos.1 and 2 and consider whether on the facts and circumstances then obtaining, the continuance of the proceeding against the respondents constituted an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice."
The learned senior counsel relied on a decision in Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and others3, wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 7) "7. The complaint filed by Respondent 2 alleges issuance of the cheques by the appellant as Director 3 MANU/SC/1000/2019 = AIR 2019 SC 3583 12 on 15-2-2001 and 28-2-2001. The appellant in his reply dated 31-8-2001, to the statutory notice, had denied answerability in view of his resignation on 20-1-2001. This fact does not find mention in the complaint. There is no allegation in the complaint that the cheques were post-dated. Even otherwise, the appellant had taken a specific objection in his earlier application under Section 482 CrPC that he had resigned from the Company on 20-1-2001 and which had been accepted. From the tenor of the order of the High Court on the earlier occasion it does not appear that Form 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies was brought on record in support of the resignation. The High Court dismissed the quashing application without considering the contention of the appellant that he had resigned from the post of the Director of the Company prior to the issuance of the cheques and the effect thereof in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court in the fresh application under Section 482 CrPC initially was therefore satisfied to issue notice in the matter after noticing the Form 32 certificate. Naturally there was a difference between the earlier application and the subsequent one, inasmuch as the statutory Form 32 did not fall for consideration by the Court earlier. The factum of resignation is not in dispute between the parties. The subsequent application, strictly 13 speaking, therefore cannot be said to a repeat application squarely on the same facts and circumstances."
8. This Court perused the aforesaid orders and comes to a conclusion that the petitioners herein filed a quash petition at the earliest point of time i.e. at the stage of F.I.R. At that stage, it cannot be inferred that the material available on record would be sufficient enough to entertain an application under Section 482 CrPC. It is pertinent to mention here that registration of F.I.R. is only to set the criminal law into motion. Once a complaint for a cognizable offence has been filed, it is obligatory on the part of the police to register a case and send the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours. At that stage, a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC would be too premature to deal with the accusation that contained in the report. In the case on hand, police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. The entire material has been furnished to the petitioners and accordingly the same has been placed before this Court. 14 There is a change in the circumstances and therefore it cannot be said to be a repeat application squarely on the same facts and circumstances of the case. It is quite evident that some new material has been placed for quashing the proceedings. In view of the same, this Court holds that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, second quash petition is maintainable.
9. Now, this Court intends to proceed to examine the factual aspects of the case. A.1 is husband of victim (L.W.6). A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1. A.4 is younger sister, A.5 is elder sister and A.6 is brother-in-law, of A.1. Marriage of A.1 was performed with the victim B.Jaswanthi as per Hindu traditions in the presence of elders on 25.02.2015. It is alleged that her parents gave 1.12 Kgs of gold jewellery, 4 Kg silver, 500 square yards of land worth Rs.2.50 crores towards pasupu-kumkum and gave an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs to A.1 towards dowry, as demanded by A.1 to A.6. At the time of marriage, the victim requested A.1 to A.5 for continuing 15 her further studies and the latter accepted it. After the marriage, she joined A.1 to lead conjugal life at Vitamurajupalli village, Vinukonda mandal, Guntur district. Her parents allowed her to take her gold ornaments to U.S.A., but she informed them that A.2 to A.5 did not accept to take the gold ornaments to U.S.A. and hence she left her gold ornaments with A.2, A.3 and A.5 and went to U.S.A. It is alleged that since then, A.2 to A.5 used to abuse her with the support of A.1. A.1 warned her to do as per the wishes of A.4 and A.5. Soon after she got her H4 Visa, A.1 took her to U.S.A. Later, in the year 2017, her parents went to U.S.A. and stayed there for three months in the house of A.1 and their daughter.
A.1, A.4 to A.6 increased harassment towards her without any reasons. The same was informed to her parents (L.Ws.1 and 7) and brother (L.W.8), for which her parents informed her that such type of things are common in conjugal life and advised her to adjust with A.1, A.4 to A.6.
16
Prior to marriage, A.1 to A.6 alleged to have accepted her for continuing her further studies in U.S.A. When they reached U.S.A., A.1 did not accept her request to continue her further studies. At a later point of time, A.1 accepted her to join in Oklahoma University to study M.S. (Master) course, but he did not pay the University fee and hence she joined a part time job to per her fee. It is alleged that because of her joining in Oklahoma University, A.1 stopped his job and joined in Dallas (TX) for job to harass her and also changed their residence, and at that time, A.1 stayed in the house of A.4. In the year 2017, she completed her M.S. and informed her brother (L.W.8) that she joined in a job. A.1 came to Dallas and imposed a condition that she should live near house of A.4. A.4 used to harass her both mentally and physically and A.1 used to harass her at the instigation of A.4. The same was informed by her to her parents (L.Ws.1 and 7) and brother (L.W.8). It is further alleged that since the date of marriage, she did not lead her conjugal life happily with A.1. She 17 informed her brother (L.W.8) that it is very hard to stay at Dallas due to unbearable harassment of A.1 and the harassment, both physically and mentally, over phone by A.4 and A.5.
It is further alleged that in September, 2019, A.2 made a phone call and informed that he fell ill and requested A.1 and the victim to come to India immediately. At that time, she got an offer for a permanent job, however, she came to India along with A.1 and stayed in Lakshmi Apartments, Vijayawada, where A.1 picked up a quarrel with her and beat her. It is further alleged that on 17.11.2019, A.1 picked up a quarrel with her on the pretext that some others were ready to give Rs.2.00 crores towards dowry and marry him and attempted to kill her by throttling with chunni and tied to her neck. But, she could not inform the same either to her parents or brother. Later, A.1 took her passport and left her at her parents and planned to leave India for USA. On negotiations, A.1 accepted to take her to U.S.A. Since her passport was not renewed 18 and Visa was also expired, in the month of January, 2020, her brother (L.W.8) arranged Visa to her to go to USA, and she went to U.S.A. But, at that time, A.1 harassed her by not allowing her into house. It is further alleged that A.1 demanded her to bring additional dowry otherwise threatened to kill her. During that time, her parents gave an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs to A.1. It is further alleged that A.1 to A.3 forcibly took her mobile phone password and got transferred an amount of USD 80,000 to his account from her savings. Thereafter, she became pregnant and when A.1 to A.6 came to know that she would give birth to a girl child, A.1 decided to leave for USA with her passport and other documents, as they did not like her to give birth to a girl child, all the accused harassed her both physically and mentally without giving food and confining her in a room. She gave birth to a girl child on 07.10.2021. But, A.1 or his relatives did not pay hospital bills and 2nd respondent paid the same. A.1 to A.6 tried to take additional dowry by blackmailing her parents. Hence, the report. 19
10. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC 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 would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.4, wherein the Apex Court held thus:
"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following 4 AIR 1992 SC 604 20 categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code; 21
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on a decision in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand & another5, wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 30 to 34).
"30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
5 (2010) 7 SCC 667 22
31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under:
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to 23 help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations."
The learned senior counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,6 wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 11 and 12).
"11. The appellants are brother-in-law and mother- inlaw respectively of the deceased. A perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which a crime was registered, does not indicate any specific allegations by disclosing the involvement of the appellants. It is the specific case of the 1st appellant that he was working as a cashier in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, which is at about 40 kms from Gorakhpur. The alleged incident was on 24.07.2018 at about 8 p.m. When the investigation was pending, the 1st appellant has filed affidavit before Senior Superintendent of Police on 08.08.2018, giving his employment details and stated that he was falsely implicated. It was his specific case that during the relevant time, he was working at ICICI Bank, Khalilabad branch, Gorakhpur and his mother was also staying with him. The Branch Manager has endorsed his presence in the branch, showing in-time 62021 SCC OnLine SC 1251 24 at 09 : 49 a.m. and out-time at 06 : 25 p.m. Even in the statement of 2nd respondent recorded by the police and also in the final report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., except omnibus and vague allegations, there is no specific allegation against the appellants to show their involvement for the offences alleged. This Court, time and again, has noticed making the family members of husband as accused by making casual reference to them in matrimonial disputes. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, in support of her case, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh1. In the aforesaid case, this Court in identical circumstances, has quashed the proceedings by observing that family members of husband were shown as accused by making casual reference to them. In the very same judgment, it is held that a large number of family members are shown in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and the contents do not disclose their active involvement, as such, taking cognizance of the matter against them was not justified. It is further held that taking cognizance in such type of cases results in abuse of judicial process. Paras 18 and 25 of the said judgment, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, read as under:
"18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister- in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was 25 undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. 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 overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at 26 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."
12. From a perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent and the final report filed by the police under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., We are of the view that the aforesaid judgment fully supports the case of the appellants. Even in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, it is not disputed that the 1st appellant was working in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, but merely stated that there was a possibility to reach Gorakhpur by 8 p.m. Though there is an allegation of causing injuries, there are no other external injuries noticed in the postmortem certificate, except the single ante-mortem injury i.e. ligature mark around the neck, and the cause of death is shown as asphyxia. Having regard to the case of the appellants and the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that except vague and bald allegations against the appellants, there are no specific allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute them for the offences alleged. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra1, which squarely applies to the case of the appellants, we are of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings."
The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on a decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State Of Bihar7, held as follows :
18. "The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that 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 7 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 27 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 prima facie case is made out against them.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the 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 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. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged."
12. In the case on hand, a perusal of the material on record would go to show that all the accusations that have been made are against A.1, A.2 and A.3 to the extent that they forcibly had taken away mobile phone password of the victim (L.W.6) and got transferred USD 80,000 to the account of A.1 from her savings account.
A specific act has been attributed as against A.4, who is 28 younger sister of A.1, that she harassed the victim (L.W.6) both physically and mentally when she was residing near to house of A.4. It is further alleged that A.1 harassed her at the instigation of A.4 and the same has been informed by her to her parents (L.Ws.1 and 7) and brother (L.W.8). All the accusations that have been made, as per the charge sheet, are alleged to have taken place in USA, where A.1, the victim (L.W.6), A.4 and A.6 were residing. All the allegations that are mentioned in the charge sheet are directed as against A.1 that he harassed her. Though no date or time has been mentioned in the charge sheet, since specific accusations have been made as against A.1, his parents A.2 and A.3 and A.4, who happens to be sister of A.1, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings insofar as A.1 to A.4 are concerned.
13. Insofar as A.5, who is elder sister of A.1, is concerned, she is residing in India. Nowhere in the charge sheet it is stated that she joined family of A.1 and 29 the victim (L.W.6) at any point of time. Except stating that all the accused i.e. A.1 to A.6, harassed the victim, there is no specific date or time that has been mentioned in the charge sheet as against her. A vague and bald allegation has been made to the extent that all the accused harassed the victim.
14. On the contrary, it has been specifically alleged that harassment is said to have taken place in U.S.A. except on one solitary instance that is said to have taken place at Vijayawada. In respect of the alleged solitary incident that is said to have taken place at Vijayawada, the allegation is against A.1, who alleged to have throttled the victim (L.W.6) with chunni and tied to her neck. The said incident is said to have taken place in the year 2019. Quite surprisingly, there is no complaint whatsoever as against the petitioners herein in respect of the said incident. But, in respect of A.5, except making a bald accusation that all the accused 30 harassed, there is absolutely no specific accusation made as against her.
15. Insofar as A.6 is concerned, he is brother-in- law of A.1. Except an omnibus accusation that all the accused harassed the victim, there is no material specifically as against A.6. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court categorically held that a tendency has been developed for roping in all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband. No specific instances have been mentioned in the charge sheet against A.5 and A.6. All the accusations that are made against them are either vague or general in nature. The allegations, if any, in the charge sheet as against A.5 and A.6 would not come within the definition of 'cruelty' as defined under Section 498A IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings as against A.5 and A.6 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 31
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, Criminal Petition Nos. 1323 of 2023 is allowed, quashing the proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur insofar as petitioner/A.5 is concerned. Criminal Petition No.7544 of 2022 is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur insofar as petitioner/A.6 is concerned, and insofar as petitioner/A.4 is concerned, the said Criminal Petition is dismissed.
The other Criminal Petition Nos. 1326 of 2023 and 2492 of 2023, are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 08.08.2023 DRK 32 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY COMMON ORDER IN CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7544 of 2022, 1323 of 2023, 1326 of 2023 and 2492 of 2023 8.8.2023 DRK