APHC010140282019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333]

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3047/2019

Between:

Hanumanthu @ Kanithi Leelavathi and another ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") by the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 in D.V.C.No.01 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Srikakulam.

2. The petitioners herein are respondent Nos.2 and 3, and the de facto complainant is the complainant in D.V.C.No.01 of 2019.

3. The brief facts of the complaint are that:

(a) The complainant is legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and their marriage took place on 24.04.1992 at Narasimhaswamy Alayam, Tekkali Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. At the time of marriage, the parents of complainant gave an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards dowry and also gave five tulas of gold ornaments and other formalities as demanded by the respondents. The respondent No.2 is sister-in-law of complainant and respondent No.3 is husband of respondent No.2.

(b) It is further stated that all the respondents and complainant are living under one roof and since the date of marriage the respondents and their family members harassed the de facto complainant/2nd respondent both physically and mentally demanding for additional dowry. It is also further stated that the respondents and their family members used to abuse the complainant in filthy language. The respondent No.1 is presently working as an Additional General manager, Ferro Alloys Plant, South Africa and he is addicted to bad vices and started harassed the complainant. It is also further

2

averred that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are wife and husband used to reside in the side by flat of the complainant in one apartment and caused much harassment both physically and mentally by abusing the complainant in filthy language for want of additional dowry. Along with these respondents, the brothers and sisters of respondent No.1 also harassed the complainant for want of additional dowry and all of them forced the complainant to give divorce to the respondent No.1. On several occasions, the respondents and their family members behaved in a cruel manner. Even though the complainant waited for the change in the respondents' attitude, there is no such response.

(c) While so, on 02.08.2018, respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., petitioners herein along with their associates attacked the complainant with deadly weapons and obtained signatures of the complainant on blank stamp papers and some white papers. Due to the unbearable harassment caused by the respondent No.1 and also the petitioners herein, along with other family members, the complainant lodged a Domestic Violence Case against the said persons and the same was numbered as D.V.C.No.1 of 2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein are no way connected with the day to day affairs of the complainant and the 1 st respondent. The petitioners herein are working persons and are residing separately. They have nothing to do with the disputes between the complainant and the 1st respondent. Only in order to wreak vengeance, the petitioners herein are roped into the present case and in order to pressurize

3

the respondent No.1 to yield her demands and to defame the petitioners in the society, the present complaint has been filed with false allegations.

5. None appeared for de facto/respondent No.2.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor representing respondent State submitted that the specific acquisitions against the petitioners herein that harassed the complainant both mentally and physically and hence prays to dismiss the petition.

7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:

"Whether the proceedings in D.V.C.No.01 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"

7. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice.

Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:

In "R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab¹ ", the Apex Court laid down the following principles:

(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;

(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;

(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the

¹ AIR 1960 SC 866

trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in "Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar²"

In "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal³" the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:

(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 FIR 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 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.

(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

$^{2}$ AIR 1990 SC 494

$3$ 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

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.

8. A perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant reveals that the marriage between the respondent No.1 and complainant was solemnized in the year 1992 and it is specifically stated in the complaint that the petitioners herein and other family members used to abuse the complainant in filthy language and harassed her both mentally and physically. It is the major contention of the de facto complainant that the petitioners/respondents No.2 and 3 herein supported the respondent No.1 in order to take divorce from the de facto complainant to the respondent No.1 and demanding for additional dowry. It is specifically stated in the complaint that on 02.08.2018, the petitioners herein approached the complainant with deadly weapons and threatened her with dire consequences and obtained signatures on blank papers.

9. When there are specific accusations against the petitioners herein that they along with respondent No.1 harassed the complainant both physically and mentally and also on one occasion attacked the complainant with deadly weapons and when it is clearly stated by the complainant in her complaint, the petitioners stating that the allegations against them are omnibus in nature is not tenable. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations are to be decided only after due course of trial. In the present criminal petition, this Court cannot

conduct a mini trial and decide whether the said accusations are true or not. 10. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the D.V.C.No.1 of 2019. However, considering the fact that the petitioners herein are 58 and 59 old at the time of filing of the petition i.e., in the year 2019 and by now they might be aged about more than 60 years and who were said to be treated as senior citizens and considering the said fact as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the presence of petitioners herein before the trial Court might be dispensed with.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. The appearance of the petitioners herein before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the specific dates as ordered by the learned Magistrate.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed.

___________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

KGR