Case Name: Viswanathan Krishna Murthy and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 6783, 7064 and 6830 of 2022
Date of Judgment: 16th June, 2025
Quorum: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Instant petitions have been filed under Section 482 of CrPC, by the petitioners/accused nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C. C. No. 585 of 2022 on the file of Court II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, for the offence punishable u/s 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act of 1961. The facts contextual to these petitions are as follows. Respondent No.2 was originally a male who transitioned to become a female. R2 became acquainted with the petitioner/accused, and despite knowing R2’s gender identity, the petitioner continued to be in romantic relationship with her. Upon knowing this affair, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 lodged complaints against R2. In January 2018, the pair started living together. On 11.01.2019, R2 and P1 executed a memorandum of understanding and subsequently got married on 21.01.2019. At the time of this marriage R2’s parents gave an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to petitioner 1 as dowry, along with 25 sovereigns of gold, silver articles weighing 500 grams and household items worth Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Throughout the marriage, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 maintained cordial relations with R2 and frequently communicated with her over the phone. R2 and P1 lived together until 11.03.2019, after which, P1 went to his parents’ house and did not return thereafter, couldn’t be contacted. On 13.03.2019, when R2 went to the house of the petitioners, she discovered that P1 was present there. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 attempted to send P1out of the country. On 27.04.2019, R2 received a threatening message from P1’s phone, warning her to leave the place or face death. Consequently, R2 lodged a complaint against petitioner nos. 1 to 4, which was registered as crime no. 25 of 2019 at the Women Police Staten, Ongole, for offences u/s 498A read with section 34 of IPC and section 4 of the D. P. Act of 1961. After the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the alleged offences, numbered C. C. No. 585 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. The present petitions have been filed, seeking to quash this very C. C.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, being a trans woman, for the offence
under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act, is maintainable or not?
- Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners/accused nos. 1 to 4 in C. C. No. 585 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 307 of IPC, Section 109 of BNS, sections 3/5/8 of Cow slaughter Act and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
APPPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS
The learned counsels for the petitioners primarily submit that trans-women cannot be considered as ‘women’ in order to lodge complaint against the husband and his relatives for the offence u/s 498A IPC. Relying on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. Vs. Union of India, wherein it was categorically held that ‘transgender’ cannot be read as ‘woman’ under family law, the petitioner council submits that since a transgender cannot bear a child and can’t be a mother, she can’t be considered as a woman in its complete sense, so much as to qualify her to maintain the complaint for the alleged offences. It was further submitted that the allegations pointed against the petitioners are baseless and they do not attract penal sanction under section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of D. P. Act. Even if the allegations are assumed to be true, at best, it would be a case for filing a writ of habeas corpus or a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Since petitioner 4 is not related to Accused nos. 1 to 3, the complaint against him is not maintainable. Lastly, it was submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are bald and omnibus, thus, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The Learned assistant public prosecutor representing the respondent submits the existance of specific allegations against the petitioners relating to the commission of the alleged offences. The truth behind these allegations has to be revealed through trial, and the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Thus, the petitions must be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
For adjudicating the 1st point of contention the Court referred to a number of judicial pronouncements concerning the rights of transgender persons. A transgender is a person who was assigned male at birth but identified and lives as a woman. In the National Legal Services Authority v Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the constitution protects non-binary individuals and that the protections envisaged under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 cannot be restricted to the biological sex of ‘male’ and ‘female’. Pursuant to this decision, the Parliament also enacted the Transgender Persons (protection of rights) Act in 2019, which established a mechanism for the legal recognition of the gender identity of transgender persons through the issuance of a certificate of identity by the District Magistrate, thereby affirming the right of every transgender person to a self-perceived gender identity. The definition mentioned under section 2(k) of this Act clearly implies that a person’s transgender identity is not contingent upon undergoing any medical or surgical procedure.
In the decision of K. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, the Apex Court has held that sexual orientation is a facet of a person’s privacy which is a fundamental right under our Constitution
and that discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. In Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that homosexuality is based on a sense of identity and is as much ingrained, inherent and innate as heterosexuality and that homosexuals have the fundamental right to live with dignity, are “entitled to the protection of equal laws, and are entitled to be treated in society as human beings without any stigma being attached to any of them.” The Hon’ble Madras High Court, in Arunkumar v Inspector General of Registration, held that the State could not disallow gender expression, and a marriage solemnized between a male and a transwoman who are both Hindus is valid under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Most importantly, in Vithal Manik Khatri v Sagar Sanjay Kamble and Others, the Bombay High Court took support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority (referred supra) at para 105 and 129to view there is no manner of doubt that transgender persons or either a male or female who has performed a sex change operation are entitled to gender to their choice and concluded that a person who has exercised his right to decide the self-identified gender of women is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Hon’ble Court’s clarification that transgender individuals in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under the existing legal framework strikes at the very argument raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in the case on hand, who placed reliance on the said decision. In the present case, despite not having the certificate from District Magistrate, the certificate issued by Dr. Jayaraman certifies respondent no.2 as a ‘transgender’. The argument that the respondent being a trans woman, cannot be considered as a woman merely because she is incapable of biological reproduction, is deeply flawed and legally impermissible. To deny a trans woman the status of a ‘woman’ for the purpose of legal protection under Section 498-A IPC solely on the ground of her reproductive capacity is to perpetuate discrimination and to violate Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. therefore, the present case arising from the complaint filed by R2 is maintainable.
With regards to the second point of contention, the court observes that A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court relied on the judgment in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana &Anr. in which the Supreme court deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband in dowry related matters with bald allegations, This view has been reiterated in the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh &Anr.11and ABC v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, it is established that to meet the threshold of the offences under section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, the allegations cannot be vague or bald or ambiguous or made in thin air.
JUDGMENT
The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.585 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole for the offences under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The court hereby laid down that a transwoman / transgender, who is in a heterosexual relationship in marriage, shall have protection under Section 498-A IPC.
CONCLUSION
The Court affirmed that a trans woman in a heterosexual marriage is entitled to protection under Section 498-A IPC, upholding her rights under the Constitution. However, as the allegations against the petitioners were found to be vague and lacking specificity, the Court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 585 of 2022, emphasizing the need to prevent misuse of criminal law through baseless accusations.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY AYANA THERESA XAVIER
