IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20151 of 2009 Between: Gunapati Satyanarayana Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Prabhakar Bommagani The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20151 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition was initially filed for a Mandamus to declare the hasty action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in seeking to arrest the petitioner even before prima facie case is established, as illegal and unconstitutional. Subsequently, the petitioner filed WPMP.No.28723 of 2010 seeking amendment of the prayer to quash FIR in Crime No.53 of 2009 of Mahila Police Station, Nalgonda, registered under Sections 498-A, 506 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This Court, by order dated 18.09.2009, granted interim stay for a limited period, which was extended from time to time till 20.11.2009 when the interim order was extended until further orders. The matrimonial discordance between the petitioner and respondent No.4 seems to be the root cause for the trouble leading to the registration of the abovementioned crime for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Even though a perusal of the allegations made in the FIR taken on their face value would disclose commission of the offences. Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, lamented that the provisions under which the crime is registered against his client are thoroughly abused and misused. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another[1] and of the Delhi High Court in Narender Kumar and another vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)[2] in support of his submission that in order to hold the petitioner and his family members to ransom, the criminal case is registered on the basis of rank false allegations. The learned counsel invited my attention to the copy of text messages allegedly given by respondent No.4 on 06.02.2009, wherein she is stated to have demanded Rs.10 lakhs by threatening that if the said demand is not met, she will file a case against the petitioner, his mother and his sister. In Preeti Gupta and another (1 supra), the Supreme Court has taken note of the present trend of abuse of Section 498-A and held: “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. 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 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. 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. 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 a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be 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 complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, 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 an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.” In Narender Kumar (2 supra) echoing the similar views, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court observed as under: “It must be understood that god had not made any two persons same with the same ideas, qualities and it must be acknowledged that marriages do fail and there is a mismatch not only in arranged marriages but even in love marriages. The mismatch is discovered during the continuation of married life. No doubt poverty is a curse and a poor man has to suffer in the society at different fronts but I consider that despite poverty being a curse, poverty cannot be made a crime. Neither the failed marriage can be made a crime. In this case, the poverty was not only a curse for the boy but it made to be a crime since due to his poor condition he could not provide all that which he should have provided to the wife and the wife ultimately saw to it that not only he but everyone of his other family members land in jail. Every marriage that fails does not fail due to dowry demand or cruelties. The marriages do fail for several other reasons including the reason of incompatibility of the persons. A failed marriage is not a crime however, the provisions of Section 498A are being used to convert failed marriages into a crime and the people are using this as tool to extract as much monetary benefit as possible. In many cases, where FIRs are filed under Section 498A IPC, petitions are being filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIRs after settlements between the parties and the allegations made of cruelties etc. are withdrawn the moment a lump sum payment is received. Involving each of the family members of the husband is another arm in the armoury of the complainants of failed marriages. Not only close relatives but distant relatives and even neighbours are being implicated under Section 498A and other provisions of IPC in cases of failed marriages. The Courts must be very cautious during trials of such offences. In all these cases in the name of investigation, except recording statement of complainant and her few relatives nothing is done by police. The police does not verify any circumstantial evidence nor collect any other evidence about the claims made by the complainant. No evidence about giving of dowry or resources of the complainant's family claiming spending of huge amounts is collected by the police. This all is resulting into gross misuse of the provisions of law. The investigating agency in all such cases must collect all circumstantial and other evidence in respect of claims made by the complainant and similarly Courts should always be careful in considering the credibility and truthfulness of the statement of the complainant and relatives.” The above judgments certainly took judicial notice of the tendency of filing false cases in order to harass the opposite parties in the matrimonial disputes. This Court cannot generalize and treat all the cases coming before it in a similar vein. While there are bound to be embellishments in the allegations in cases concerning matrimonial disputes, it is difficult for this Court to hold at this stage that all the allegations contained in the complaint are false, because such a finding can be rendered by the competent criminal Court only after completion of investigation, filing of charge sheet and full-fledged trial. As held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, the jurisdiction of this Court either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing cases is very narrow and limited. It is held that unless the allegations taken on their face value do not disclose commission of an offence, this Court seldom interferes with the process of criminal investigation (see State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others[3], State of Orissa vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo[4], A.V. Mohan Rao vs. M. Kishan Rao[5]). Therefore, despite the observations of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, referred to above, it is not possible for this Court to prevent the respondents from investigating the crime registered against the petitioner. However, having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client is working as a software engineer in Mumbai and that his arrest will not only cost him his employment, but also will cause humiliation and bring disrepute to him and his family members, taking this case as an exception to the cases of this category, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed not to arrest the petitioner pending investigation and unless a charge sheet is filed after completion of the investigation. The petitioner shall, however, make himself available for investigation as and when summoned by the police and cooperate in completion of investigation and filing appropriate report. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.26281 of 2009 and 28723 of 2010 and WVMP.No.4206 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.06.2011 ES [1] (2010) 7 SCC 667 [2] I (2008) DMC 337 [3] 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 [4] (2005) 13 SCC 540 [5] (2002) 6 SCC 174