Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that the high court has a duty to consider the allegations in matrimonial disputes with great care and circumspection so as to avoid the danger of unjust prosecution, as it quashed criminal proceedings reopened against a man and others by his wife after the compromise.

"The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this court," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma said.

The court allowed two appeals filed by Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy and others against the high court's order of July 20, 2021 declining to quash criminal proceedings reinitiated against the appellants for offences under Sections 420, 498A, 506 of the IPC & under Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 

After criminal proceedings initiated by the wife against the husband and in-laws, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat where a compromise was arrived at and the trial court compounded the offences and acquitted all the accused.

However, within a month, the wife withdrew her consent. The trial court reopened the proceedings by an order on July 20, 2021, on her memo.

The appellants approached the high court contending the proceedings were sought to be reopened to wreak vengeance.

The high court, however, upheld the trial court's order and set aside the compromise between the parties in view of the amendment to Section 320(2) CrPC, applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh. As per the amendment, compounding of an offence under Section 498A is only permissible after a lapse of three months from the date of request for compounding. 

The high court left it open for the trial court to conduct the proceedings but in view of general and omnibus nature of allegations, it dispensed with the presence of the accused.

In their contentions, the appellants said that the necessary ingredients of the offences were absent in the case as the allegations were wholly general and omnibus in nature, made with the intention to harass them, in an abuse of the process of law.

They said that the wife filed a petition for divorce and thereafter sought to reopen the criminal proceedings.

After hearing the parties, the bench said, "In the considered opinion of this court, there is significant merit in the submissions of the 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," the bench added. 

The court referred to the its judgment in the case of 'Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam Vs State of Bihar' (2022) where the case was quashed in view of vague and general nature of allegations made by the wife against in-laws.

Also replying upon the top court judgment in the case of 'Mahmood Ali Vs State of UP (2023), the bench said, "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 court pointed out the appellants 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. 

"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," the bench said.

The court, therefore, set aside the high court as well as trial court's orders and quashed the criminal proceedings, saying the material on record was wholly insufficient to proceed against the appellants.

Case Title: Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr