Vallapu Somya and others vs State of Telangana

Juvvadi Sridevi, J

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.589 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri (previously Additional XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri at Cyberabad) (for short ‘trial Court’), pertaining to Crime No.160 of 2022 of P.S. Malkajgiri, registered for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

Heard Mr. T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd  respondent-de facto complainant was married to one Vallapu Akhilesh on 23.11.2017. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. Accused No.1 and petitioner-accused No.2 are the mother and sister of Akhilesh. The petitioner-accused No.4 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.2 and they are residing in the house of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the maternal aunt of Akhilesh. After one month from the date of marriage, all the accused harassed her physically and mentally to do a job. The petitioners also harassed the de facto complainant that she could not give birth to child, they would have got more dowry if Akhilesh was married to another girl and used to instigate her to divorce her husband. Thereafter, out of wedlock, the de facto complainant was blessed with a baby girl. The petitioners took the dowry given to her husband at the time of marriage, illegally occupied the medical shop of her husband, abused the de facto complainant in filthy language, also promised to pay the debts of her husband and driven them out of the house. The petitioners are not allowing the de facto complainant and her husband to enter the house.

It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant and her husband in collusion with the Police only to wreck vengeance and to grab the ancestral property. The petitioner-accused No.3 along with her brother namely V.Om Prakash, who is the father of Akhilesh, have filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.46 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Malkajgiri (previously XVI Additional District Judge, Malkajgiri), questioning the gift deed dated 13.10.2015 which was fraudulently executed by the de facto complainant’s husband from his grandfather by cheating the family members. There are case and counter cases between the parties. It is further contended that the de facto complainant and her husband have absconded as they took huge loans from various persons, again surfaced after the petitioners have paid substantial amounts towards loans and had now cast an eye on the house property of the parents. The de facto complainant and her husband left the house of petitioners in January, 2019 and they never returned due to the fear of creditors. It is further contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of offence under Section 498-A of IPC are not made out. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter is coming up for trial in the trial Court on 08.07.2025. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted hereunder:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others 1992 SCC (Cri) 426  the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court 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 defined 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:

(1) 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(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 specific 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.

Before appreciating the merits in the present case, it is necessary to refer to the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with situations akin to that which arises in the present matter. In

Mahmood Ali and others. v. State of U.P and others 2023 INSC 684, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. Because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.

In the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another 2024 INSC 953, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraph No.32 held that:

“32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.”

This is a peculiar case where the petitioners, being the family members of de facto complainant’s husband are accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, without a single allegation against her husband. Surprisingly, it is apparent from the record that the allegations against the petitioners have been made by the de facto complainant-wife, acting at the instance of her husband, whose family members are the petitioners herein. Although Section 498-A of IPC envisages cruelty inflicted upon a woman by a relative of the husband, it is rare to see such allegations aimed at the relatives de hors any accusation against the husband, but a plain reading of the F.I.R. begins to unravel this mystery. There are property disputes between the parties, which are purely civil in nature. With regard to the same, a civil suit is pending between the parties. Case and counter cases are also filed by and against the parties inter se.

The history of civil litigation between the de facto complainant and her husband on one side and the petitioners on the other side clearly exposes the true intention of de facto complainant in lodging the present complaint. It demonstrates the personal interest of de facto complainant and her husband in settling scores with the petitioners herein, who are the family members of Akhilesh (de facto complainant’s husband) in respect of the family property. The FIR clearly discloses a proxy litigation engaged by Akhilesh through his wife-de facto complainant against the petitioners to settle property disputes. The FIR is nothing but a shot fired by Akhilesh from his wife's shoulder to espouse his own cause of his interest in his ancestral property. It is evident from the attending circumstances in the case that the entire law enforcement machinery has been set in motion by the de facto complainant only at Akhilesh’s behest and the Police machinery has been used for realizing private interest of the de facto complainant and her husband. Hence, I am of the considered view that the present complaint was filed with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance on the petitioners in view of the property disputes pending between the parties.

Apart from that, a bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses and the charge sheet shows that the allegations against the petitioners are wholly general and omnibus in nature. Even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the petitioners herein. None of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general and vague allegations made against them. Moreover, the allegations are made only against the husband’s relatives. Though the de facto complainant has narrated incidents of cruelty in the FIR, they do not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and the material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offence alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the petitioners in the commission of the offences.

Having regard to the anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law, and hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.589 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri (previously XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri at Cyberabad).

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.