APHC010323282022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 830/2022 Between: 1. HANUMANTHU VENKATA RAVIKIRAN, S/O.LATE H.V.S.S.J. MALLESWARA RAO, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC-LECTURER IN PRIVATE COLLEGE. 2. HANUMANTHU VENKATA NIRMALA MALLESWAR @ DR. NIRMALA, W/O. LATE H.V.S.S.J. MALLESWARARAO, AGED 68 YEARS. 3. HANUMANTHU KAUSHAL @ SONI, D/O.VENKATA RAVIKIRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, (ALL ARE RESIDING IN PLOT NO. 301, ADILAXMI APARTMENTS, NEW COLONY, SRIKAKULAM TOWN) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): V. SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) has been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to set aside the Order dated 30.03.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.586 of 2019 in C.C.No.208 of 2018 on the file of the 2 Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam. 2. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to law. It is further submitted that there is no prima facie material to connect the Petitioners with the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations leveled against Petitioner No.3, who is the unmarried daughter of Accused No.1 through his first wife, are bald and vague. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order and to discharge the Petitioners from the case. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned order is legal and based on sufficient prima facie material. At the stage of discharge, only strong suspicion is required and not detailed examination of evidence. The complaint discloses specific overt acts against the Petitioners. Hence, no interference is called for and the petition deserves dismissal. 5. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Court below had dismissed the discharge petition filed by the Petitioners on the ground that the said petition was filed belatedly i.e., after framing charges against the Petitioners. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, except stating that all the Petitioners harassed Respondent 3 No.2 both mentally and physically, there are no allegations against Petitioner No.3 / Accused No.3. There are no instances of any kind of harassment by the Petitioner No.3 / Accused No.3. In the absence of any specific overt acts against the Petitioner / Accused No.3, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against her is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case for discharging the Petitioner/Accused No.3 from the case. However, there are prima facie allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the veracity of the said allegations has to be decided during the course of trial, but not at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside insofar as it relates to Petitioner No.3 / Accused No.3, and she is hereby discharged from the case. However, the order of the trial Court is confirmed in respect of Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2, and the proceedings against them shall continue in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:06.04.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.830 of 2022 Dt.06.04.2026 Dinesh