Damera Kishore & Anr. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/ Accused Nos.4 and 5 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.163 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, arising out of Crime No.212 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are Accused Nos.4 and 5. The second respondent is the wife of Accused No.1, who is the brother of petitioner No.1, and petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. According to the second respondent, Accused No.1 and she led a happy marital life for about six months after their marriage. At the time of marriage, the in-laws of the second respondent allegedly promised to secure a job for Accused No.1 or assist him in starting a business. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused, including the petitioners, who were residing in the same house, subjected the second respondent to mental and physical harassment and demanded additional dowry. It is further alleged that her father-in-law beat and harassed her, that she was sent to her parents’ house, and that after mediation she rejoined her husband. According to the second respondent, the harassment continued and, in June, 2021, she was necked out of the matrimonial house demanding additional dowry. The petitioners contend that the allegations against them are false, vague and devoid of any specific overt acts constituting the alleged offences.

It is further contended that the second respondent is a dumb person and that the parents of the petitioners had approached the parents of Accused No.1 with the marriage proposal. It is stated that the parents of the second respondent were aware that Accused No.1 was unemployed and dependent upon his father. The petitioners contend that they never lived with Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the second respondent under one roof. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be working as a Project Engineer with SNC-Lavalin UK Limited, Iraq Branch, and to be working on sea for three months and at Visakhapatnam for the remaining period. It is also contended that the parents of the second respondent had developed differences with the petitioners and had taken the second respondent to their house in the year 2021, and that only after about two years she lodged the report. On these grounds, the petitioners contend that they have been falsely implicated.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Respondent No.2, though served with notice, remained absent.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are omnibus in nature and that there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributable to either of them. It is further submitted that the material collected during investigation does not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioners and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submits that the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed along with the statements of the witnesses and other material collected during investigation. It is contended that the material discloses the involvement of the petitioners and that the truthfulness of the allegations cannot be examined in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction at this stage.

As seen from the report, the marriage between Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 10.08.2013 at T.T.D. Kalyana Mandapam, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, according to Hindu rites and caste customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 gave dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and incurred marriage expenses of Rs.10,00,000/-. The second respondent states that immediately after the marriage she joined Accused No.1 and they led a happy marital life for about six months. Thereafter, according to her version, her husband, in-laws, Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 subjected her to harassment and cruelty, demanded additional dowry and ultimately necked her out of the matrimonial house.

It is also borne out from the material that respondent No.2 is a dumb person and, during investigation, the Investigating Officer examined her in detail in question-and-answer form and recorded her answers by gestures. The charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses, as referred to in the draft material, contain allegations not only against Accused Nos.1 to 3 but also against the present petitioners, alleging that they harassed respondent No.2, subjected her to cruelty and demanded additional dowry. There is also a specific allegation that Accused No.2 used to beat respondent No.2 with a belt.

The principal contention of the petitioners is that they were not residing with the other accused and respondent No.2 and, therefore, the allegations against them are inherently improbable. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed upon Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh ^{11.(2023) 16 SCC 666,} , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the circumstances in which criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes could amount to an abuse of process. Reliance is also placed upon Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar^{22.(2022) 6 SCC 599}, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned in respect of the proceeding against relatives on the basis of general and omnibus allegations where no prima facie case is made out.

In this regard, it is to be noted that it is well settled that for the purpose of exercising power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se and it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. It is also well settled that if the allegations made in the FIR, taken on the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offense, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed. Further, the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases and that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bajanlal and Others.^{33.1992 Supplement 1 SCC 335} Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated seven cardinal principles and they are reproduced as follows:

There can be no dispute with the settled principle that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At the same time, the Court is required to examine the allegations and the material collected during investigation to ascertain whether continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh^{44.(2023) 15 SCC 488}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that, while considering a petition for quashing, the Court may examine the attending circumstances emerging from the record and is not required to confine itself mechanically to the recitals in the First Information Report alone.

The principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), also indicate the recognised categories in which the inherent power may be exercised, including cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute an offence, where the uncontroverted allegations and material collected do not disclose the commission of an offence, or where continuation of the proceedings would otherwise result in abuse of the process of Court. However, the power is not intended to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or to determine the truthfulness of disputed factual assertions at the stage of considering a petition for quashing.

In the present case, the material placed before this Court cannot be said to disclose a complete absence of allegations against the petitioners. On the contrary, the report and the material collected during investigation contain allegations that the petitioners, along with the other accused, harassed respondent No.2, subjected her to cruelty and demanded additional dowry. The statements of the witnesses forming part of the charge sheet also refer to the involvement of the petitioners. Whether those allegations are true, whether the petitioners were in fact residing separately, the duration and nature of their residence, and whether the acts alleged were actually committed are matters which require appreciation of evidence.

The contention that petitioner No.1 was employed as a Project Engineer and was required to work on sea for considerable periods, and that the petitioners were residing at a different address at Visakhapatnam, is a matter of defence. The photocopies of the Aadhaar cards relied upon by the petitioners may constitute material in support of their version, but at this stage this Court cannot conclusively hold, merely on the basis of such documents, that the allegations in the charge sheet are false or impossible. The fact that the parents of petitioner No.2 brought the marriage alliance also does not, by itself, exclude the possibility of subsequent matrimonial disputes or the alleged involvement of the petitioners.

The judgments relied upon by the petitioners lay down the settled principle that relatives should not be subjected to a criminal trial merely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. However, the said principle has to be applied to the facts and material of each case. In the present case, the charge sheet cannot be said, at this stage, to contain no material whatsoever against the petitioners. The allegations are matters which have to be tested by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence available to the petitioners. This Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, cannot undertake a mini-trial or weigh the respective versions of the parties.

It is equally relevant that the alleged acts relate to matrimonial cruelty and demand for additional dowry. The allegations, if accepted at their face value, are capable of attracting the ingredients of the offences for which the charge sheet has been filed. The fact that the complaint was lodged after a period of time, or that there were earlier mediations and the second respondent had stayed with her parents for some period, are circumstances which may be relevant at the trial, but they do not, by themselves, furnish a ground to conclude that the prosecution is inherently untenable.

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the case does not fall within any of the categories warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. The allegations and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication by the trial Court. The contentions raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact which cannot appropriately be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. The proceedings in C.C.No.163 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, shall proceed in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the trial Court while considering the case on its merits.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.