APHC010557532024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9153/2024 Between: 1. R LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. R MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 1-4-134/B/6, KAMALA NEHRU COLONY, MAHABUBNAGAR, MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT, TELANGANA. 2. R MUNISWAMY,, S/O. R RANGAYYA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 1-4-134/B/6, KAMALA NEHRU COLONY, MAHABUBNAGAR, MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT, TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. AARYA SANTHA KUMARI, W/O R. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 64/93,S.NAGAPPA STREET. NEAR OLD BUSSTAND, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. NAMRATHA CHOUDARY P Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. AYESHA AZMA S 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9153 of 2024 Dated 15.04.202 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2903 of 2019, on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Kurnool. 2. Smt. Namratha Chowdary, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the entire complaint is false, baseless, and has been lodged with an ulterior motive to harass the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the allegations of illicit intimacy and conspiracy to administer poison are purely speculative and are not supported by any cogent or legally admissible evidence. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the so- called call recordings are unverified, doctored, and cannot be relied upon without proper forensic examination, and even otherwise do not disclose any prima facie offence. It is argued that the complaint itself indicates that the missing person had voluntarily left the house due to matrimonial discord, and there is no material to connect the Petitioners with any alleged offence. Hence, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3. Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9153 of 2024 Dated 15.04.202 commission of cognizable offences and warrant thorough investigation. It is submitted that the complaint specifically refers to call recordings indicating a conspiracy between the Petitioners to administer poison to the missing person, which constitutes a serious matter requiring detailed probe. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the truth or otherwise of the said recordings and allegations can only be ascertained during the course of investigation, including forensic analysis of the electronic evidence. It is argued that at this stage, the Court ought not to conduct a roving enquiry into the merits of the case, and since there is sufficient material to proceed, the petition for quashing is liable to be dismissed. 4. Smt. S. Ayesh Azma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent No.2, while reiterating the submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the complaint discloses specific and serious allegations against the Petitioners, supported by material in the form of call recordings indicating a conspiracy to administer poison to the missing person. It is submitted that such material cannot be discarded at the threshold and requires thorough investigation, including forensic examination, to ascertain its authenticity and evidentiary value. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 further submits that the scope of interference under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is limited, and at this stage, the Court ought not to undertake a detailed examination of the facts. Therefore, in view of the prima facie material available on record, it is prayed that the petition for quashing be dismissed. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9153 of 2024 Dated 15.04.202 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.2903/2019 against the Accused Nos.2 and 3 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Kurnool are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟/Section 528 of „the BNSS‟?" 8. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgmentsof the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana1, at paragraph No.6 held as under: “6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 9. Thus, in K. Subba Rao supra it held that criminal proceedings are ordinarily not interfered with at the interlocutory stage unless there is abuse of process; however, the Court may intervene to secure the ends of justice. In matrimonial and dowry-related cases, distant relatives should not be 1(2018) 14 SCC 452 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9153 of 2024 Dated 15.04.202 implicated on omnibus allegations without specific instances of their involvement. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra2, at paragraph Nos.29 & 30, held as under: “29. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that when the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. 30. In the present case also, as discussed above, the facts when taken at face value, do not reveal any specific instance of cruelty committed by the appellants herein. In our view, only stating that cruelty has been committed by the appellants herein due to some reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC being attracted. The next allegation regarding a specific incident relating to the miscarriage being caused by the appellants herein has also been discussed above. A bare perusal of the allegation and the analysis of the same when compared with the statement of the Doctor reveals that even if the allegations are accepted at the face value, it would not prima facie make out a case against the present appellants.” 11. Similarly, in Digambar supra it is observed that if the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even when taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence, the High Court is justified in quashing the proceedings. In the present case, the allegations do not disclose any specific instance of cruelty to attract Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’, and even the allegation regarding miscarriage, when examined with the doctor’s statement, does not make out a prima facie case against the appellants. 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9153 of 2024 Dated 15.04.202 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad3, at paragraph No.12, held as under: “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.” 13. In this manner, in G.V. Rao supra it is ruled that there has been a rise in matrimonial disputes, where minor disagreements often escalate into serious criminal cases, unnecessarily implicating elders who could have facilitated reconciliation. Such litigation should not be encouraged, as prolonged court battles consume years of the parties’ lives instead of allowing them to amicably resolve their differences. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana4, at paragraph No.27, held as under: “27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid 3(2000) 3 SCC 693 4(2025) 3 SCC 735 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9153 of 2024 Dated 15.04.202 unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.” 15. Therefore, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra it is observed that a mere reference to family members in matrimonial disputes, without specific allegations of active involvement, cannot justify criminal prosecution, as courts must guard against sweeping and generalized accusations. Where relatives live separately and no specific role is attributed to them, implicating them would amount to abuse of the process of law. 16. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Boddu Rani v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, at paragraph No.14, held as under: “14. In the backdrop of the legal position discussed supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present In the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. Coming to the facts of the present case, a fair look at the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet, except making casual reference of names of A3 and A4 that after giving birth to the female child, when they visited their house, they used to join A1 to harass the wife, nothing is attributed in specific against them. But coming to the case of A2, there are specific allegations. In that view, it is tenable to quash the crime against A3 and A4 and not against A2.” 17. By relying on several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge in Boddu Rani supra quashed the proceedings against Accused Nos.3 and 4, who are relatives of the husband. 52025 SCC OnLine AP 183 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9153 of 2024 Dated 15.04.202 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar6, at paragraph Nos.5 and 6, held that ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court, when approached for quashment of criminal proceedings, would not appreciate the defence of the accused nor consider the veracity of the documents relied upon by him. Nevertheless, an exception has been carved out in appropriate cases, as held in Yin Cheng Hsiung v. Essem Chemical Industries7; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal8; and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley9, that where the document relied upon is a public document or its veracity is not disputed, the same can be considered. 19. Upon a meticulous appraisal of the record and in light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is persuaded to hold that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are manifestly vague, omnibus, and bereft of any specific overt act. The factual substratum, even when taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 489-A read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 4 of ‘the D.P.Act’. As observed in Digambar supra, when the uncontroverted allegations fail to prima facie constitute an offence, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. The continuation of prosecution in such circumstances would amount to a palpable abuse of process, resulting in miscarriage of justice, and 6(2019) 13 SCC 350 7(2011) 15 SCC 207 81992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9(2011) 3 SCC 351 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9153 of 2024 Dated 15.04.202 therefore warrants interdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS.’ 20. Furthermore, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the judicial caution enunciated in K. Subba Rao supra and Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra, wherein it was categorically held that distant relatives or family members cannot be roped in on the basis of sweeping and generalized allegations unsupported by concrete evidence. The present case epitomizes such indiscriminate implication, where the respondent-wife’s grievances, at best, reveal matrimonial discord and incompatibility rather than criminal culpability. In consonance with the dictum in G.V. Rao supra, the Court is duty-bound to prevent the escalation of minor matrimonial skirmishes into protracted criminal litigation that consumes the prime years of the parties. Hence, to secure the ends of justice and prevent the misuse of criminal law, the proceedings in C.C.No.2903 of 2019 are liable to be quashed. 21. As can be seen from the record, Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is presently aged about 78 years and is the mother-in-law of Respondent No.2 and the mother of Accused No.1. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3, aged about 81 years, is the father-in-law of Respondent No.2 and the father of Accused No.1, and has been bedridden since 2024 due to age-related ailments. The husband of Respondent No.2/Accused No.1 died on 20.04.2024, and thereafter, Respondent No.2 remarried in the same year. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9153 of 2024 Dated 15.04.202 Kurnool, which runs into three typed pages. However, it does not contain any specific allegations against the Petitioners. The allegations are vague, sweeping, and omnibus in nature. It is merely alleged that the Petitioners instigated Accused No.1, but no specific overt acts are attributed to them. In such circumstances, particularly when Accused No.1 has already died and Respondent No.2 has remarried, prosecuting the aged in-laws, one of whom is bedridden, appears wholly unjustified. 22. Considering the nature of the allegations against the Petitioners, continuation of further proceedings in C.C. No.2903 of 2019 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 23. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C. No.2903 of 2019 (Crime No.18 of 2017 of Women Police Station, Kurnool), pending on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO,J Date :15.04.2026 KMS 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9153 of 2024 Dated 15.04.202 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No: 9153 of 2024 Date: 15.04.2026 KMS 187