Shaik Arif, S/O Mahaboob Basha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J

The Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-3 U/s.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Heard Sri G.Siva Prasada Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1. None appeared for the unofficial respondent, though notice served.

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is shown as A-3 in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 IPC and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; the petitioner is neither relative nor family member of the husband (A-1) of the unofficial respondent; the petitioner is Kazi and performed the marriage of A-1 and the unofficial respondent; except that he has nothing to do with the disputes between A-1 and the unofficial respondent; he was falsely implicated in the case; therefore, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 IPC and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The learned counsel for petitioner restated the above contentions of the petitioner at the time of arguments.

In the light of above contentions, the point that arose for consideration in this Criminal petition is as under:

“Whether the proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, be quashed as prayed for, invoking section 482 Cr.P.C?”

POINT:

Perusal of the First Information Report does not disclose that the petitioner/A-3 is relative or family member of A-1. There are no specific overt acts alleged against the petitioner/A-3 to attract the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 I.P.C. and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, except bald statement of the unofficial respondent.

In that view of the matter and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geddam Jhansi Vs. State of Telangana 2025 SCC Online SC 263 and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others 1992 AIR 604, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuance of proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 I.P.C and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, would amount not only abuse of process, but also mis-use of criminal proceedings.

The inherent powers of Court U/s.482 Cr.P.C. be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court. When the allegations in the report presented by the unofficial respondent to the police or the statements of the witnesses recorded U/s.161 Cr.P.C. are not constituting any prima facie case for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 IPC or U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioner/A-3 for the foregoing reasons, this Court can exercise its power, in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and others.

Therefore, in the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 IPC and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Accordingly, the point is answered.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in Cr.No.740/2022 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ongole, for the offence U/secs.498-A, 506 I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are quashed.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.