The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a cruelty case against a husband and his family members, finding that the wife's complaint was lodged as a counterblast after members of her family were convicted for attacking the husband and his family under Sections 323 and 506 IPC.

Section 323 penalizes voluntarily causing simple hurt and Section 506 penalizes criminal intimidation

While examining the complaint and charge sheet, the Court found that there was no specific overt act or allegation against the accused to attract Section 498A IPC. It also noted that the earlier incident leading to the conviction was not mentioned in the wife's complaint.

Section 498A IPC penalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives. General allegations against family members, without specific acts, cannot by themselves sustain criminal proceedings.

Against this backdrop, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela allowed the criminal petition and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court.

The Court observed:

“A holistic reading of the complaint lodged by the complainant, does not disclose about the incident which has happened on 25.04.2018, which ultimately culminated into conviction on all the accused therein, who are none other than the father, mother and other relatives of the de facto-complainant. There is nothing for this Court to disbelieve the said act since the records speak for itself, videlicet, convicted by a competent criminal Court. Leaving apart the said arguments. This Court has also ventured into the contents in the chargesheet which is filed after investigation in pursuance of the complaint dated 06.06.2018 and does not indicate any specific overt act/ allegations so as to attract the offences under Section 498A IPC.”

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the husband and the de facto complainant wife. The wife alleged that her husband had demanded an additional Rs. 10 lakh as dowry and that his mother, father, brother and sister supported the demand. She further alleged that the accused subjected her to physical and mental harassment, beat her and pushed her out of the matrimonial home.

Following the complaint and investigation, the police filed a charge sheet under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Criminal proceedings were thereafter instituted before the Trial Court. The husband and his family members then approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

The petitioners contended that the complaint was a counterblast to the earlier attack on the husband and his family by members of the complainant's family. The latter were convicted under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and fined.

They submitted that the complainant had borne a grudge following the conviction and lodged the present complaint with false allegations. They also pointed out that the earlier incident was not mentioned in the complaint or her Section 161 CrPC statement. The allegations against the husband and his relatives were also omnibus in nature. 

In response, the State argued that the earlier incident and the present complaint were separate events. It submitted that the allegations in the complaint disclosed an offence under Section 498A IPC and should be examined by the Trial Court. The State therefore opposed quashing of the proceedings under the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. 

Having considered the rival submissions, the High Court found no specific overt act or allegation against the accused to attract Section 498A IPC. The Court also noted that the earlier incident leading to the conviction of the complainant's family members was absent from the complaint. It observed that the record itself established the earlier conviction by a competent criminal court. 

The Court cautioned that general allegations against the husband's relatives are not enough to make them face trial. At the same time, it clarified that allegations against the husband cannot be lightly quashed merely because other family members are also implicated.

In the present case, considering the earlier conviction and the absence of specific allegations, the Court found it a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. 

Since the petitioners had approached the High Court at the initial stage, the proceedings before the trial Court had remained stayed pursuant to an interim order. The trial had therefore not commenced.

Finding that continuation of the proceedings would not be justified on the material available, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the accused.

The criminal petition was accordingly allowed.

Counsel for the Petitioners: S. Syam Sunder Rao

Counsel for the Respondent-State: G. Neelothpal, Assistant Public Prosecutor