No Utility In Prolonging Proceedings U/S 498A IPC & Dowry Prohibition Act When Family Court Nullified The Marriage: Andhra Pradesh HC Discharges Accused

The Court was hearing a Review Petition filed under Section 397 and Section 401 of CrPC.

The bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao observed, “…this Court perceives that there is no utility in prolonging the proceedings against the accused individuals, especially in light of the Family Court's order nullifying the marriage between the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent.”

Brief Facts-

The present case centres on procedural irregularities involving the investigating officer, who allegedly rushed to file an FIR solely on a report from the Respondent, without conducting a thorough inquiry. Despite anticipatory bail granted by the Court, the investigating officer allegedly disregarded orders from the Sessions Judge and arrested the Petitioners, M Sreenivasulu and others. The subsequent case is believed to have stemmed from the improper FIR issuance, aimed at harassing the Petitioners and tarnishing their reputation.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Apex Court in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., in which, after analysing various decisions on the scope of the proceedings at the stage of framing of the charge Under Section 227/228 of the CrPC, the Court endorsed the view taken in Onkar Nath Mishra V. State (NCT of Delhi) and quoted, “It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to find out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the Accused has been made out.”

The Court noted that central to the argument of the Petitioner where a marriage is deemed null and void, the pursuit of legal proceedings under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act becomes untenable was the delineation of "dowry" as envisaged within the Act, positing it as a demand for property or valuable security intricately intertwined with the institution of marriage, emphasising the exhaustive scope of dowry as defined in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court observed, “The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency, or the documents produced, which prima facie reveal suspicious circumstances against the accused, suffice to frame a charge. Such material is taken into account in the process of framing the charge. If there are insufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, they would be discharged. However, if the court, after due consideration of the material, finds grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the triable offence, then a charge must necessarily be framed.”

The Court mentioned the decision of Apex Court in Shivcharan Lal Verma and another V. State of M.P. relied on by the Petitioner and stated, “It is a case where, the appeal is filed by the two appellants /accused, who have been convicted under sections 306 and 498A of IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court considered whether the prosecution under section 498A of IPC can at all be attracted since the marriage was null and void… in as much as the alleged marriage with Mohini during the subsistence of a valid marriage with Kalindi is null and void and therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the conviction and sentence under section 498A of IPC.”

The Court noted that the Complainant did not raise any objection to the declaration of the marriage as null and void, but sought leave to contest other allegations about the recovery of amounts and ornaments through separate proceedings. The Court further noted that both parties have reached an amicable compromise, rendering the continuation of the proceedings unnecessary.

Accordingly, the Court stated that there is no suspicion that the Petitioners are guilty of the offence alleged under sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. As per the Court, it would be unjustified to make the Petitioners face a full-fledged criminal trial in this backdrop.

Finally, the Court allowed the Revision Petition.

Cause Title: M. Sreenivasulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh