IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1861 of 2021
Between:
1. Smt. Kota Yaswanthi Reshma, W/o. Kota Eswar Chandra
Vidhya
Sagar, aged about 32 years
Household, R/o. D.No. 10/471,
Sundaramgiri Vari Street, Santhapeta, Nellore City,
SPSR Nellore
District.
2. Sri. Kota Eswar Chandra Vidhya Sagar @ Vidhya Sagar,
S/o. Kota
Guru Bramham, aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.
D.No.
10/471, Sundaramgiri Vari Street, Santhapeta, Nellore
City, SPSR
Nellore District.
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 & 5
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
2. Smt. Jonnalagaddda Karisyami, W/o. P.L.Vikas, aged
about 24 years,
Occ: Household, R/o. D.No. 7/381-17, Vasavi Nagar,
NGO Colony,
Kadapa City.
...Respondents
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying
that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition,
the High Court may be pleased to quash the Proceedings
in
C.C.No.789/2020 on the file of the Hon’ble 2"^^ Additional
Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Kadapa which is registered for the
offences U/S 498-A IPC
Sections 3 and 4 of Down Prohibition Act.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition,
the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings
including
appearance of these petitioners in C.C.No.789/2020
on the file of the
Hon'ble 2"'* Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class Kadapa pending
disposal of the present Criminal Petition.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing
the Memorandum
of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the
arguments of Smt K
Pallavi, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor on behalf of
the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Rosedar S.R.A, Advocate
for the
Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
APHC010110482021
PRADESH
[3396]
AT AMARAVATI
.■i.
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY JHE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1861/2021
Between:
1.SMT. KOTA YASWANTHI RESHMA, W/0. KOTA ESWAR
CHANDRA VIDHYA SAGAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD, R/0. D.NO. 10/471, SUNDARAMGIRI VARI
STREET, SANTHAPETA, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE
DISTRICT.
2.SRI. KOTA ESWAR CHANDRA VIDHYA SAGAR @ VIDHYA
SAGAR, SIO. KOTA GURU BRAMHAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/0. D.NO. 10/471,
SUNDARAMGIRI VARI STREET, SANTHAPETA, NELLORE CITY,
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
REP. BY PUBLIC
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI
2.SMT JONNALAGADDDA KARISYAMI, W/0. P.L.VIKAS, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/0. D.NO. 7/381-17,
VASAVI NAGAR, NGO COLONY, KADAPA CITY.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. K PALLAVI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.ROSEDAR SRA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused
Nos.4 and 5,
seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.789 of 2020
on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kadapa registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the
Prohibition Act^
Indian Penal Code^ and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Petitioners herein are the sister and brother-in-law of Accused
2.
No.1.
The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows;
3.
The marriage of Respondent No.2/Complainant with
a)
Accused No.1 was performed on 29.11.2015 at Chennai as per Hindu
rites and caste customs.
b) At the time of marriage, on the demand of Accused Nos.1 to
4, the parents of the Complainant gave cash of Rs. 15.00 lakhs, 125
sovereigns of gold, 5 kgs of silver and house site worth Rs.5 lakhs
towards dowry.
In addition to that, the parents of the Complainant also gave
c)
Accused No.1 for his clothes and Rs.1,00,000/- to
Do npn/.
iw
Petitioner/Accused No.4 towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams.
’ for short ‘Cr.P.C’
2 for short‘IPC’
3 for short ‘D.P.Act’
«ir
3
d) On the day of engagement, they also gave silver jug
and
diamond rings to the Complainant and Accused No.1.
e) On the next day of engagement, the parents of the
Complainant also gave Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Accused
in the presence of
senior paternal uncle and aunt of the Complainant.
f) After the marriage, all the Accused started harassing
the
Complainant by demanding additional dowry.
g) Accused No.1 used to beat the Complainant and all the
Accused subjected her to mental cruelty.
h) Accused Nos.2 to 5 used to threaten the Complainant stating
that they would perform another marriage to Accused
No.1, if she fails to
bring additional dowry.
i) After delivering a male child, the Complainant was dropped
at her parental home stating that she became fat.
j) Though the father of the Complainant tried to send her to the
matrimonial home, all the Accused did not allow her by demanding
additional dowry.
k) As such. Respondent No.2/Complainant lodged a report with
Chinnachovi/k U/G Police Station, Kadapa against Accused Nos.1 to 5
and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.296 of 2019 for the
offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
4
D.P.Act. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet
against all the Accused for the said offences.
4. Grounds for quashment:
Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the present petition
is filed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 to quash the proceedings
against them in the above C.C on the following grounds:
(i) Petitioners herein are innocent persons and they have
nothing to do with the matrimonial life of Respondent No.2 and Accused
No.1.
(ii) Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case in order
to make Accused No.1 to heed to the illegal demands of Respondent
No.2.
(iii) Petitioners herein were married on 04.03.2012 and they have
been living separately in Nellore and the family of Respondent No.2 is at
Chennai.
(iv) Having addicted to lead a lavish lifestyle. Respondent No.2
herself left the matrimonial society.
(V) There are no specific allegations against the Petitioners
either in the complaint or in the charge sheet.
(vi) No specific overt acts were attributed against the Petitioners
to attract the alleged offences against them. Therefore, continuation of
proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law.
5
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
5. Heard Ms.K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the Petitioners,
Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for
State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Rosedar S.R.A., learned
counsel for
Respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit;
Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.4 and 5, who are the married
sister-in-law and her husband.
Except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations
attributed against the Petitioners.
The marriage of Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 had taken p lace
in the year 2012, whereas, the marriage of the Complainant and
Accused No.1 was in the year 2015.
Complaint would clearly show that the Petitioners have been living
at Nellore and the Com|3lainant and Accused No.1 have been
living at Chennai.
Except a casual reference of the names of the Petitioners, there is
nothing specific against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to quash
the proceedings against the Petitioners.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance
on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and
6
another v. State of Jharkhand and another'*, Pritam
Ashok
Sadaphule and others v. State of Maharashtra and another®,
Anil Khadkiwaia v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another®, Kapil Agarwal and others v. Sanjay Sharma
and
others^, and Kahkiashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v.
State
of Bihar and others .
7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would state;
The FIR and the statements of the witnesses before the Police
would clearly indicate that the Petitioners played a main role in the
destruction of the family the Complainant.
Specific allegations are made against the Petitioners and as such,
there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the
Petitioners. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded to the arguments
advances by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
Point for Determination
9. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing
both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is;
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment
of proceedings against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 4
(2010) 7 see 667
® (2015) 11 see 769
® (2019) 17 see 294
^ (2021) 5 see 524
® (2022) 6 see 599
7
and 5 in C. C.No. 789 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa?
Determination by the Court
10. 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.
11. In Preetr Gupta (case referred to supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
held as under:
“32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the
complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice Is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the Innocent. To find out the truth is
tendency of
a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The
implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it
is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
8
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints
and must take pragmatic realities into consideration
while dealing
with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment
of
husband's close relations who had been living in different
cities
and never visited or rarely visited the place where
the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion.
The allegations of the complaint are required to be
scrutinized
with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals
that long
and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony
and
bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties.
It is also a
matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the
complainant if the husband or the .husband's relations
had to
remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the
chances of
amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering
IS
extremely long and painful. ”
(emphasis supplied)
12. In Kahkashan Kausar (case referred to supra), it
was held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court 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 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, 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.
(emphasis supplied)
9
13. In the case on hand, a fair look at the contents of the information
submitted to the Police by Respondent No.2 would show that the
marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 was performed
on
29.11.2015, whereas, the marriage of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and
5 had taken place on 04.03.2012 and since then, the Petitioners have
been residing separately at Nellore and they have not resided with the
family of Respondent No.2. Omnibus allegations were made against the
Petitioners to the effect that they used to harass Respondent No.2 by
commenting that she could bring less dowry and also by demanding
additional dowry. The charge sheet would also reveal a casual reference
of the names of the Petitioners along with the other Accused and no
specific overt acts were attributed against the Petitioners.
14. 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 pressurize the
immediate family of the husband. No specific instances have been
mentioned either in the Charge sheet or in the complaint against the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5. All the allegations that were made
Therefore, this Court
against them are either vague or general in nature.
proceedings against
is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned
an abuse of process
the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 is nothing but
of the view to exercise
of the Court. In such circumstances, this Court is
-rt
10
the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent
abuse of the
process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the decisions
referred to
supra, this Court is of the view that continuation
of criminal proceedings
against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 is undesirable
and the same are
liable to be quashed.
16. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings
against
Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.789 of 2020
on the file of the
Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Kadapa registered
for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of
IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the D.P.Act are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/- G.HELA NAIDU
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION
OFFICER
To
Kadapa ScT' Magistrate of First Class,
Kadapa, YSR
' KaL®pf
U/G Police Station, YSR
3. One CC to Smt K Pallavi, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri Rosedar S.R.A, Advocate
[OPUC]
imaravam?[OUT?"''" Court of Andhra
Pradesh at
6. Three CD Copies
TK
HIGH COURT
TK
DATED:28/06/2024
ORDER
CRLP.No.1861 of 2021
IS?
f ^8
S'
^Og
-O'?
%
Of-
ri>.
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION