LexMAMIDI ANIL KUMAR REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.