HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5908 OF 2008 DATE: 17-03-2011 BETWEEN: S.N. Saroja. - - - Petitioner/ A-2. AND 1. Smt. Naga Gouri Mani. 2. The State of A.P., Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5908 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash entire proceedings in C.C. No.134 of 2008 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District, so far as the 2nd petitioner/A-2 in the calendar case is concerned. 2. Heard Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-State. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there should be clear instances of the petitioner involving in the harassment of the de-facto complainant in the criminal case one way, but in fact no such specific instances are mentioned in the charge sheet and it is a clear case of false implication of the petitioner in the case with the intention of harassing her along with their other relatives which amounts to abuse of process of law and hence it is a fit case to quash the proceedings so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned. 4. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined whether prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner and there are grounds to quash the proceedings in the calendar case? 5. Point : In the charge sheet it is only alleged against the petitioner that she used to mislead, misrepresent and instigate the first accused against the de-facto complainant and it is further alleged that she used to say that if her son had married another woman, they would have got a dowry of Rs.40,00,000/- It does not speak in what way the petitioner harassed the de-facto complainant and when and where and in what context she stated that if her son had married another woman they would have got dowry of Rs.40,00,000/- and even supposing that such a statement regarding the dowry was made by the petitioner unless there is supporting material, it can not be said that it is sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further in the absence of specific record, any amount of evidence adduced in the trail of the case may not be suffice to convict the petitioner for the alleged offences. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in support of his contentions relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Preeti Gupta and another V. State of Jharkhand and another[1] wherein it is observed : 32. 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. 33. 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 tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 35. 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 the 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. 7. In the backdrop of these observations, the case on hand is to be dealt with, therefore certainly the proceedings in the calendar case are to be quashed in the absence of sufficient material to prosecute her for the offences in question to prevent abuse of the process of law and unnecessary harassment of her by continuing the proceedings against her. In the result, the entire proceedings against the Petitioner/A-2 in C.C. No.5908 of 2008, on the file of learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, Chittoor District, are hereby quashed allowing the Criminal Petition. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHANR EDDY, J Dated: 17-03-2011 Dsh. [1] (2010) 7 SCC 667