APHC010116002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2503/2025 Between: 1. THOTA LAKSHMIKANTH, S/O T.LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O H.NO.1-36/1/11/SKR/103 SATYHA ENCLAVE, CHANDA NAGAR, PATHANCHERUVU, HYDERABAD CITY, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. T MEGHANA, D/O B.MURALI MOHAN,MODEL TOWER,FLAT NO.407, OPP.AMRUTHA HOSPITAL,GAYATHRI ESTATE, KURNOOL TOWN, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to stay of all further proceedings in CC.No.2085 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool by exempting the personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 of day-to-day appearance before the trial court, pending disposal of the criminal petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceedings in CC.No.2085 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool by exempting the personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 of day to day appearance before the trial court, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K VENKATA SUBBAIAH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. Y JAYA RAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: HN, J CRLP.No.2503 _2025 The Court made the following Order: 1. The petitioner is seeking quash of CC.No.2085 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 and is facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 85, 318(2) read with 3(5) BNS, Sections 3 and 5 of DP Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint alleging various offences and that marriage of the accused No.1 and the 2nd respondent was performed on 12.02.2023 at Rajampet and that her parents have given Rs.50,00,000/- in cash apart from 30 tulas of gold ornaments as dowry. 3. It is submitted that a baby girl was born out of the wedlock of the accused No.1 and the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent was further harassed to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. The mother of accused No.1 and the petitioner herein are As the Accused No.1 neglecting the 2nd respondent by hearing the words of her mother and the petitioner herein and also harassing the 2nd respondent. As such, a complaint was filed. HN, J CRLP.No.2503 _2025 4. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner herein is the uncle of the accused No.1. It is submitted that petitioner never stayed together along with accused No.1 and respondent No.2 under the same roof. However, the petitioner is arraigned as an accused as he happens to be the uncle of the accused No.1. 5. It is submitted that none of the allegations of the complaint or the charge sheet assign any specific role for the petitioner. It is also submitted that only vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioner which cannot constitute offences under Section 498-A of IPC or offences under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. 6. It is also submitted that none of the witnesses speak about the role of the petitioner/accused No.3 in commission of any of the offences. 7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and that without relegating the matter to the trial, the case against the petitioner cannot be quashed when prima facie allegations are made against the petitioner in the complaint and the charge sheet. HN, J CRLP.No.2503 _2025 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Kahkshan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It was also held that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations would have to be dealt appropriately. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material on record. 10. The allegation regarding the petitioner is that he performed the marriage of accused No.1 and the 2nd respondent on 12.02.2023 at Rajampeta and immediately after marriage the 2nd respondent joined with the accused No.1 at her in-laws house and thereafter shifted to Hyderabad and there the accused No.1 and his mother demanded additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- towards household articles and furniture and after that accused No.1 had taken the 2nd respondent to her in-laws house at Kurnool and dropped there and thereafter the accused No.1 was not receiving phone 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 HN, J CRLP.No.2503 _2025 calls of 2nd respondent and he had not taken her back to his marital fold. Accused No.1 subjected her to harassment by hiding his sexual defect and also cheated her. 11. On perusal of the record none of the allegations against petitioner herein can be considered as prima facie allegations which would require consideration of the trial Court. Maintaining a case against petitioner herein with the present set of facts and with the statements recorded of the listed witnesses, no purpose would be served in continuing the case against the petitioner herein. 12. The allegations against the petitioner are prima facie vague, omnibus and without any basis and without any corroborating evidence to drive home the allegations against the petitioner. 13. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view CC.No.2085 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool is hereby quashed against petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 10.07.2025 NKA HN, J CRLP.No.2503 _2025 261 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CRIMINAL PETITION No.2503 of 2025 Dated 10.07.2025 NKA