IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 59 OF 2020 Between 1. P. Veeranjaneya Prathap, S/o. Sri. P. Hari Babu, aged about 29 years, Occupation business, 2. Sri. Papolu Hari babu. Occupation. Business, 3. Smt. Palolu Lakshmi @ Mani, W/o. Sri. Papolu Hari babu, aged about 48 years. Occupation. House-wife, (Petitioner No.1 to 3 are resident of H.No.MC.No.276, PV Colony, Manuguru town ship, Khammam, Telangana.) 4. Sri. Pinnenti Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sri Nageswara Rao, aged about 36 years. Occupation. Software employee, 5. Smt. Pinnenti Sirisha Lakshmi, W/o. Sri Pinnenti Srinivasa Rao, aged about 34 years. Occupation. House-wife, S/o.Veera Swamy, aged about 54 years. (Petitioner No.4 and 5 are resident of Plot No.327, Krushi Defence Colony, Patam Cheruvu, Hyderabad.) ...Petitioners/Accused A-1 to A-5 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...Respondent 2. Sri Puppala Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Sri Venkata Subbarao, aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o.D.No.23-28, Santhi Nagar, Kondapalli (V), Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents/Complainants Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C.No.753 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada in Cr.No.508 of 2018 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.753 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Srinivas Basava, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Ms. Thota Suneetha, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. on The Court made the following ORDER: VJP,J Cr.LP.No.59 of2020 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.59 of 2020 Between^ 1. P. Veeranjaneya Prathap, S/o Sri P hari Babu, aged about 29 years, Occupation business. 2. Sri Papolu Hari.babu, S/o.Veera Swamy, aged about 54 Occupation Business. 3. Smt. Palolu Lakshmi @ Mani, W/o. Sri Papolu Hari babu, aged about 48 years. Occupation. House-wife, (Petitioner No.l to 3 resident of H.Isro.MC.No.276, PV Colony, Manuguru town ship, Khammam, Telangana.) 4. Sri Pinnenti Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sri Nageswara Rao, aged about 36 ‘ years. Occupation. Software employee. 5. Smt. Pinnenti Sirisha Lakshmi, W/o. Sri Pinnenti SrinivasaRao, aged about 34 years. Occupation. House-wife, (Petitioner No.4 and 5 are resident of Plot No.327, Krushi Defence Colony, Patam Cheruvu, Hyderabad.) years, are ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 2. Sri Puppala Sambasiya Rao, S/o. Sri Venkata Subbarao, aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o.D.No.23-28, Santhi Nagar, Kondapalli (V), Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners Sri Srinivas Basava Counsel for Respondents Asst. Public Prosecutor for R. 1 Ms.Thota Suneetha for R.2 ORDER The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973i has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 5, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.753 of 2019, on the file of the for short ‘Cr.P.C’ VJP,J Cr.L.P.No.59 of2020 Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.3 2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition are- a. It is the case of the de facto complainant that the between his daughter and Accused No.l was agreed to be performed by both the elders. While so, on 09.07.2018 engagement function was also 1 performed at the house of the de facto complainant in the presence of the elders of both families and on 05.08.2018 lagna partrika’ was also written and they have decided to perform the marriage on 17.10.2018 at 8.18 p.m. They agreed to give Ac.0.50 cents of land and cash of Rs.8 lakhs towards dowry and at the time of pasupu function on 06.08.2018, they gave Rs.4 lakhs and agreed to pay the remaining on the date of marriage, b. While the marriage arrangements were going on, when de facto complainant called the Accused No.2 on 09.09.2018, it was stated by 1 Accused Nos., 2 and 3that they were not interested in this marriage as the dowry amount was insufficient and there was another alliance ready to provide Ac. 1.00 cents of land and cash of Rs.lO lakhs. Though they tried to convince them, they did not agree for the same. Petitioners/A. 1 to A.5 have cheated them. marriage 2 for short I.P.C.’ 3for short ‘the Act’ VJP,J Cr.L.P.No.59 of2020 3 c. Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.508 of 2018 was registered by Ibrahimpatnam Police, fpr the offence under Section 420 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. d. After completion of investigation in the said crime, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.753 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Vijayawada. • The said C.C is sought to be quashed by Petitioners/A. 1 to A.5, vide this Petition. Hence, the Crl.P. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.l and Ms. Thota Suneetha, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that, there are no allegations ‘ attributed against the Petitioner Nos.l, 4 and 5. He would further submit that the family members of Accused No.l are roped in without any specific allegations leveled against them and that no case is made out against the Petitioners/A.4 and A.5 regarding the commission of the aforesaid offence. Further, he would submit that the investigating officer has not properly investigated the case to cull out the truth or otherwise. Therefore, he would pray for quash of the charge sheet against the VJP,J Cr.L.P.No.59 of2020 petitioners/A. 1 to A.5. He would also submit that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a sheer abuse of process of law and hence prays for quashment of the case against the petitioners. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the criminal petition on the ground that meticulous appreciation of the evidence should be done and the Petitioners have to face trial. Further, She would submit that, on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, and in the light of 161 Cr.P.C statements of ( L.Ws.3 to 5, it is clear that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed against the Petitioners and that there is no reason for interference of this Court. She would further submit that the matter requires trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. Therefore, she would pray for dismissal of the criminal petition 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that after engagement and just before the marriage, the petitioners cancelled the marriage for the sake of getting more dowry from other alliance. It is also submitted that act of the Petitioners in cancelling the marriage, lowered I the dignity of the aspiring bride and the members of her family members wanted to commit suicide for the act done by the petitioners, for the lost reputation in the society. Ultimately, she would pray for dismissal of the petition. VJP,J Cr.LP.No.59 of2020 5 Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment proceedings in C.C.753 of 2019 against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the .IP.C., 1860 and Secs. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961? Determination by the Court 8. Inherent powers, are as the word suggests, are inalienably present in the Court. They are not conferred, but are merely safeguarded and preserved by provision- under Section 482 to the High Court. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the ‘ Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court or court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, t depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. VJP,J Cr.LP.No.59 of2020 6 Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 9. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in , State ofHaryana and others v. Bbajanlal and others^is, considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defned and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (l) 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 oflicers under Section 156(l) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 4 AIR 1992 SC 604 VJP,J Cr.L.P.No.59 of2020 7 (3) Where the uncontroverted 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 speciifc 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare casesi that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice/ (emphasis supplied) VJP,J Cr.L.P.No.59 of2020 8 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokamekar Vs. 10. State ofMaharashtra and others, has categorically held as follows: “5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case 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 has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justiGcation for the High Court to interfere. 6. Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In the instant case, perusal of the record shows that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners/A. 1 to A. 5 with regard to ’ the commission of offence. It is averred that the Petitioners have obtained an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from the de facto complainant towards dowry for the marriage of Petitioner/Accused No. 1 with the daughter of the de facto complainant and subsequently, they refused for the said marriage for the sake of getting more dowry through another alliance. The Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P.,^ made an 5 AIR 2019 SC 847 ® (1996) 4 see 596 VJP,J Cr.LP.No.59 of2020 t 9 observation that the curse of dowry has been raising its ugly head every now and then but the evil has been flourishing beyond imaginable proportions. In the very same case, while holding that Section 4 would include instances of demand of dowry “at’ before” or “after” marriage, it was observed as follows; “Take for example a case where the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives make a 'demand' of dowry during marriage negotiations and later on after bringing the bridal party to the bride's house find that the bride or her parents or relative have $ not met the earlier 'demand' and call offthe marriage and leave the bride house shoiild they escape the punishment under the Act. The answer has to be an emphatic 'no'. It would be adding insult to injury if we were to countenance that their action would not attract the provisions ofSection 4 of the Act. Such an interpretation would frustrate the very object of the Act and would also run contrary to the accepted principles relatingto the interpretationofstatutes.” / 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and also this Court time and again held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised very ( sparingly in rarest of rare cases under extraordinary circumstances. It was further held that this Court has to examine case to case basis. In the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C only prima facie case has to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In view of the above stated facts, this Court is of the view that the allegations as VJP,J Cr.L.P.No.59 of2020 10 made against the Petitioners are to face trial to- test their veracity and this (jlourt cannot conduct a roving enquiry at this stage. Therefore, it is exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the not fit to proceedings. 13. Without prejudice to the defence available to the Petitioners, the Criminal Petition is hereby dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SOI- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. One CC to Sri. Srinivas Basava, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. Thota Suneetha, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three C.D Copies. Ssl sree HIGH COURT DATED:12/01/2024 ORDER CRLP.No.59 of 2020 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION O'S