AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.121 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The case of the petitioner is that she is the cousin of Accused No.1 and is a resident of Chinnakothapalli Village, Addanki Mandal. She states that she has no manner of concern with the allegations levelled against her or the other accused. The petitioner/Accused No.4 was provisionally appointed as Welfare and Education Assistant in the Social Welfare Department, Prakasam District, and was posted at Ambadipudi Sachivalayam of Bapatla District vide proceedings dated 26.12.2020. Since then, she has been working at Pedda Ambadupudi Secretariat. According to the petitioner, she neither harassed the complainant nor had any concern with the matrimonial disputes between Accused No.1 and respondent No.2. It is further stated that, since the petitioner has been working as Welfare and Educational Assistant at Pedda Ambadupudi Village, respondent No.2 has made false allegations against her with a view to harass her along with the other accused. It is contended that there is absolutely no material against the petitioner.
Heard Sri V. Suryakiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. There was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 and, therefore, her arguments were treated as closed.
As seen from the record, respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of Accused No.1. Owing to matrimonial disputes, she lodged a report against her husband, in-laws and the petitioner, and the same was registered as a case in crime No.126 of 2022 of the offence under Sections 498-A of the Code and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid a charge sheet against the petitioner and the other accused for the said offences.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no specific material against the petitioner. In the report, no specific allegation is attributed to the petitioner/Accused No.4. Even in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is merely stated that the petitioner/Accused No.4 occasionally visited the house of Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and that all the family members insisted that Accused No.1 demand additional dowry. Except for the said general allegation, there is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioner.
In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that courts have to be extremely careful and cautious while dealing with complaints arising out of matrimonial disputes and must take pragmatic realities into consideration. It was further observed that allegations of harassment against the husband’s close relatives who are living in different cities and who rarely visit the matrimonial home require careful scrutiny and circumspection.
Further, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana 2 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering allegations against relatives of the husband, observed that a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, should not be permitted to result in criminal prosecution. Generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for prosecution. The Court also cautioned that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to become a means of unnecessary harassment of family members in the absence of specific allegations against each of them.
In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are general in nature. There is no specific allegation that the petitioner demanded dowry, subjected respondent No.2 to harassment or committed any particular act constituting the alleged offences. The mere assertion that the petitioner occasionally visited the house of Accused No.1 and respondent No.2, coupled with the general statement that all family members insisted upon a demand for additional dowry, does not, by itself, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner. The material placed before the Court, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the petitioner’s active involvement in the alleged offences.
It is well settled that, while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court ordinarily has to proceed on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint/FIR and the material accompanying the same, without undertaking an enquiry into the correctness or reliability of such allegations. At the same time, where the allegations, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence or do not disclose the commission of an offence by the accused, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The inherent power is, however, to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with circumspection.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, has illustrated the categories of cases in which the extraordinary power of quashing may be exercised. One such category is where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused. Another category is where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected in support thereof do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused. The principles laid down therein continue to guide the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the allegations and material placed on record do not disclose any specific overt act or active involvement on the part of the petitioner/Accused No.4. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against her, in the absence of specific and substantive allegations constituting the alleged offences, would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.
In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.121 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram for the offences under Section Sections 498-A of the Code and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are hereby quashed.
As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.