IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3147 OF 2010. Date:09.04.2010 Between:- Aripalli Rajeshwari and another ..Petitioners/A-4 and A-5 And The State represented by S.H.O., II Town P.S., Kakinada, East Godavari District, being rep.by P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the accused Nos.4 and 5 for quashing F.I.R. in Crime No.23 of 2010 of II Town (Law and Order) Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A/34 I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. A-1 is husband of the victim woman. A-2 and A-3 are stated to be parents-in-law of the victim. A-1 to A-3 are not figuring as petitioners herein. A-4 is sister of A-1. A-5 is husband of A-4. It is stated that they are elders and they are residing separately from A-1 to A-3 after marriage of A-4. The second respondent/defacto complainant is father of the victim woman. After narrating the events, it is alleged in the report given to the police that along with A-1 to A-3, A-4 and A-5 also were demanding the victim to bring additional dowry and were harassing the victim physically and mentally. Investigation of the said crime is pending. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that only omnibus and bald allegations were made against A-4 and A-5 along with others in their report and that therefore, F.I.R. in this case is liable to be quashed. 4. First Information Report is not ‘be all and end all’ of the prosecution case. It is only a piece of paper which puts the criminal justice system into motion and several other steps would follow thereafter. During investigation, the police would record detailed statements of the victim, defacto complainant and their witnesses and also from independent witnesses. Then only, investigating officer will come to a conclusion with regard to truth or falsity of allegations made in the report. Simply on the basis of allegations in F.I.R., the police are not going to file charge sheet into Court. 5. In SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[1], the Supreme Court gave the following caution to the investigating agency as well as to the Courts in dealing with offences under Section 498-A I.P.C: “The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to pevent abuse of the well- intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provisions a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin’s weapon. If cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.” 6. In RAMESH VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU[2], the Supreme Court, after considering allegations in F.I.R as well as in charge sheet on facts, came to the conclusion that accusation made against sister-in-law of the victim was nothing but bald. In the case on hand, still charge sheet/final report is yet to be filed; and statements of witnesses and documents are yet to be collected during investigation. That stage has not come in the present case. 7. The petitioners’ counsel also placed reliance on BHASKAR LAL SHARMA ANR VS. MONICA[3]. Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the above case law will have to be noted by the investigating agency while investigating a crime under Section 498-A I.P.C. 8. It would be too premature for this Court to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the investigation at threshold of the crime. I do not find any merits in this petition. 9. Hence, the petition is dimissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 9th April 2010 AMD [1] AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 3100 [2] 2006-Sccrir-0-1188 [3] 2009 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 461