MAMIDI ANIL KUMAR REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR

          [2024] 2 S.C.R. 252 : 2024 INSC 101

              Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy
                          v.
          The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
              (Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2024)

                       05 February 2024
  [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

                    Issue for Consideration
The High Court, if justified in refusing to quash the docket order
which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants
for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.

                           Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of the
docket order – Matter pertaining to matrimonial disputes,
wherein the High Court refused to quash the docket order
which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the husband
and in-laws for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Correctness:
Held: A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses’ and
the charge-sheet shows that the allegations against the husband
and in-laws are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if
taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case
against the husband and in-laws – Material on record neither
discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses
the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the husband and
in-laws in the commission of the offences – Husband and in-
laws approached the High Court on inter alia grounds that the
proceedings were re-initiated on vexatious grounds and even
highlighted the commencement of divorce proceedings by the
wife, as such the High Court had a duty to consider the allegations
with great care and circumspection so as to protect against the
danger of unjust prosecution – Thus, the material on record being
wholly insufficient to proceed against the husband and in-laws,
the impugned orders and the docket order set aside and the
criminal proceedings against the husband and in-laws quashed.
[Paras 14, 17, 18]
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                                253

     Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.


                                Case Law Cited
             Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [2022]
             1 SCR 558 : (2022) 6 SCC 599; Mahmood Ali v. State of
             U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Dowry
      Prohibition Act, 1961.

                               List of Keywords
      Docket Order; Reopening/re-initiating criminal proceedings; Matrimonial
      disputes; False implication; Statement of witnesses; Compromise; Lok
      Adalat; Divorce; Vexatious grounds; Unjust prosecution.

                              Case Arising From

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.758
      of 2024
      From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2022 of the High Court
      of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRLP No.2768 of 2022
      With
      Criminal Appeal No.759 of 2024
                           Appearances for Parties

      D. Mahesh Babu, Adv. for the Appellant.
      Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, K V Girish Chowdary, T
      Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Meeran Maqbool,
      Ms. Archita Nigam, Advs. for the Respondents.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                     Order
1.    Leave granted.
2.    Both the appeals are being disposed of by the present common order.
3.    The present appeals arise out of orders dated (i) 11.11.2022 in
      Criminal Petition No. 5710 of 2021 (the ‘Impugned Order I’) and (ii)
      23.11.2022 in Criminal Petition No. 2768 of 2022 (the ‘Impugned
      Order II’), passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (collectively
      referred to as the ‘Impugned Orders’).
254                                                             [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                             Digital Supreme Court Reports


4.     Vide the Impugned Orders, the High Court refused to quash the
       Docket Order dated 20.07.2021 which reinitiated criminal proceedings
       against the Appellants for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 of the IPC
       & u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
       Brief Facts
5.     The Appellants before us are the husband and the in-laws of
       Respondent No. 2 i.e., the de-facto complainant. After the case against
       the Appellants for the aforementioned offences was instituted, the
       parties were referred to the Lok Adalat by the Trial Court.
6.     As per the Docket Order dated 26.06.2021, the parties entered into a
       compromise before the Lok Adalat and in consideration of the same,
       a petition for compounding of the offences was allowed by the Trial
       Court. Accordingly, the Appellants were acquitted by the Trial Court.
7.     Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 altered her position and filed a memo
       before the Trial Court withdrawing her consent from the compromise.
       Consequently, vide Docket Order dated 20.07.2021, the Trial Court
       reopened the proceedings against the Appellants.
8.     Aggrieved by this development, the Appellants approached the
       High Court u/s. 482 CrPC seeking to quash the Docket Order dated
       20.07.2021 on inter alia grounds that Respondent No. 2 sought to
       reopen the criminal proceedings only to wreak vengeance upon the
       Appellants.
9.     In case of the Appellant-husband, vide Impugned Order II, the High
       Court upheld the Docket Order dated 20.07.2021 and the set aside
       the compromise between the parties in view of the amendment1 to
       Sec. 320(2) CrPC, applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh. As
       per the amendment, compounding of an offence u/s. 498A is only
       permissible after a lapse of three months from the date of request
       for compounding.
10. In case of the in-laws, vide Impugned Order I, the High Court
    refused to grant the relief sought, noting the existence of prima facie
    allegations against the Appellants. However, in recognition of the
    fact that the allegations were general and omnibus in nature, the
    High Court dispensed with the presence of the Appellants during the
    trial and furthermore, left it open for the Trial Court to conduct trial.


1    Andhra Pradesh Act 11 of 2003, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 01.08.2003)
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                        255

    Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.


     Submissions & Analysis:
11. Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently submits that a bare
    perusal of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 and the charge-
    sheet plainly discloses the absence of any necessary ingredients of
    the charged offences. It is submitted that the allegations are wholly
    general and omnibus in nature, made only with the intention to harass
    the Appellants, amounting to an abuse of the process of the law.
12. To buttress his contention, Learned Counsel for the Appellants has
    drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that Respondent No. 2
    filed a petition seeking divorce and only thereafter, the memo seeking
    reopening of the criminal proceedings against the Appellants was
    filed before the Trial Court.
13. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and
    perused the record.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is significant merit in
    the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. A bare
    perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses’ and the charge-
    sheet shows that the allegations against the Appellants 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 Appellants. The
    material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences
    alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any
    of the Appellants in the commission of the offences.
15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus
    allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown
    to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar2,
    this Court dealt with a similar case wherein the allegations made
    by the complainant-wife against her in-laws u/s. 498A and others
    were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars.
    The court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons
    and noted that such a situation, if left unchecked, would result in the
    abuse of the process of law.



2   [2022] 1 SCR 558 : [(2022) 6 SCC 599]
256                                                                [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                              Digital Supreme Court Reports


16. More recently, this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.3, while
    considering the principles applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction
    u/s. 482 CrPC, observed as follows:
               “12. At this stage, we would like to observe something
               important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
               invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
               the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 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. We say so 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. The Court
               while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
               CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself
               only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
               account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/
               registration of the case as well as the materials collected
               in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case



3      (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023)
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                           257

   Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.


           on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period
           of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
           registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
           attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private
           or personal grudge as alleged.”
17. Considering the dicta in Mahmood Ali (supra), we find that the High
    Court in this case has failed to exercise due care and has mechanically
    permitted the criminal proceedings to continue despite specifically
    finding that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The
    Appellants herein approached the High Court on inter alia grounds
    that the proceedings were re-initiated on vexatious grounds and even
    highlighted the commencement of divorce proceedings by Respondent
    No. 2. In these peculiar circumstances, the High Court had a duty
    to consider the allegations with great care and circumspection so
    as to protect against the danger of unjust prosecution.
18. As stated above, given the facts and circumstances of the case, we
    find that the material on record is wholly insufficient to proceed against
    the Appellants. Accordingly, the Impugned Orders and the Docket
    Order dated 20.07.2021 are set aside and the criminal proceedings
    against the Appellants are consequently quashed.
19. Resultantly, the appeals stand allowed.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.


     Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain                      Result of the case:
                                                              Appeals allowed.