APHC010118492020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 0Ei0 0^ THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1563 OF 2020 Between: Bannaravuri Murali, S/o Nagabushanam aged about 50 years, Bollapalli Village Mandal, Guntur District ...Petitioner/A.4 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi, Throhg Koduru Police Station, Krishna District. 2. Bannaravuri Siva Pavani, W/o. Rajesh, Aged 34 years, R/o. Viswanadhapalli Village, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondents under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in Petition the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet in CC.No.374 of the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda, in so 2019 on far as Petitioner/A4 is concerned. lA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in Petition CC.No.374 of 2019 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda, including the appearance of the petitioner/A4 herein, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAIDU SIVA RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADE VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following order: ^>22, % APHC010118492020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] 0^ THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1563/2020 Between: 1 BANNARAVURI MURALl, , S/0 NAGABUSHANAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOLLAPALLI VILLAGE MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI, THROHG KODURU POLICE STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. BANNARAVURI SIVA PAVANI, W/0. RAJESH, AGED 34 YEARS, KODURU MANDAL, R/0. VISWANADHAPALLI VILLAGE KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 quash the Charge Sheet in CC.No.374 of 2019 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda, in so far as Petitioner/A4 is concerned and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 dispense with the filing of the Certified copy of Charge Sheet in C.C.No. 374/2019 on the file of Hon'ble Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda, and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in CC.No.374 of 2019 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda, including the appearance of the petitioner/A4 herein, pending disposal of the above criminal petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. NAIDU SIVA RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1 .GADE VENKATESWARA RAO 2 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court Made the Following Order: The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner herein/Accused No.4, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.374 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda, for the offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard Sri Naidu Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the paternal uncle to A1. Learned counsel would further submit that police after due investigation, deleted the name of the petitioner/A4 in 2. learned Assistant Public the charge sheet. But the learned Magistrate has returned the charge sheet directing the police to add the name of A4 also. Then, the police added the name of A4 and presented before the Court which is numbered a Calendar Case. The allegation made against the petitioner in the charge sheet is that on 21 august, A1 along with petitioner/A4 and his daughter attacked the defacto complainant and tried to kill her. the said allegation, nothing is attributed against the petitioner in specific. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are clear allegations made* against the petitioner in the as Except 4. report submitted by the victim and also in her statement, she categorically stated against the petitioner by making specific overt acts. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,^ wherein it was 5. held thus; (paragraphs 11 and 12). “11. The appellants are brother-in-law and mother-inlaw respectively of the deceased. A perusal of the complaint filed by the 2^"^ respondent, pursuant to which a crime was registered, does not indicate any specific allegations by disclosing the involvement of the appellants. It is the specific case of the 1®‘ appellant that he was working as a cashier in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, which is at about 40 kms from Gorakhpur. The alleged incident was on 24.07.2018 at about 8 p.m. When the investigation was pending, the 1®* appellant has filed affidavit before Senior Superintendent of Police on 08.08.2018, giving his employment details and stated that he was falsely implicated. It was his specific case that during the relevant time, he was working at ICICI Bank, Khalilabad branch, Gbrakhpur and his mother was also staying with him. The Branch Manager has endorsed his presence in the branch, showing in-time at 09 : 49 a.m. and out-time at 06 : 25 p.m. Even in the statement of 2""' respondent recorded by the police and also in the final report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., except omnibus and vague allegations, there is no specific allegation against the appellants to show their involvement for the offences alleged. This Court, time and again, has noticed making the family members of husband as accused by making casual reference to them in matrimonial disputes. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, in support of her case, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh-. In the aforesaid case, this Court in identical circumstances, has quashed the proceedings by observing that family members of husband were shown as accused by making casual reference to them. In the very same judgment, it is held that a large number of family members are shown in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and the contents do not ‘2021 see OnLine Se 1251 4 * disclose their active involvement, as such, taking cognizance of the matter against them was not justified, it is further held that taking cognizance in such type of cases results in abuse of judicial process. Paras 18 and 25 of the said judgment which are relevant for the purpose of this case, read as under; ’ 18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 ; 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appeHants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the was allowed. appeal 25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take the offence alleged against the relativerS accused who are cognizance of -- the main prima facie not found to have 5 indulged in physical and mental torture of the S well-settled principle laid RF^did Z J niention, that if the FIR did not disc ose the commission of an offence ^nrnr Quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in tact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR phma facie discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic su^SinT”'^ matrimonial 12. From ona „ ^ ® perusal of the complaint filed bv the 2 respondent and the final report filed by the police under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., We are of the view that the aforesaid judgment fully supports the case of the appellants. Even in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 it is ^ appellant was working in ICICI Barik at Khalilabad branch, but merely stated that there was a possibiliW to reach Gorakhpur by 8 p.m. Though there is an allegation of causing injuries, there are no other external injuries noticed in e certificate, except the singie ante-mortem injury i.e. ligature mark around the neck, and the cause of death s7 shown as asphyxia. Having regard to the case of the appellants and the material placed on record, we are of the considered rnTe/'f r®”* allegations agalli^f'ihe inS/P ^ t specific allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute them fo? the ^ judgment of this Court case of Geeta Mehrotra\ which squarely applies the appellants, we are of the view that it i the proceedings.” In a decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State wherein it was held as follows ; in the to the case of is a fit case to quash 6. OfBihar^, ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 6 18. “The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an omnibus accusation has been made against the petitioner herein and no specific overt act has been attributed against him. He further submitted that the petitioner is working as a Home guard at Vinukonda and residing separately and he has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of A1 and the de facto complainant. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court and this court categorically held that a tendency has been developed of roping in all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in order to browbeat and 7. 8. 7 pressurize the immediate family of the husband and the accusations against the relatives of the husband, if omnibus in nature, have to be curtailed at the threshold. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has returned the charge sheet by directing the police to add the name of A4 which is not sustainable under law. In the facts and circumstances of the this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner herein/A4 would amount to abuse of process of Court. case For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings, in respect of petitioner/A4 in C.C.No.374 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda, are hereby quashed. 9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate District. Avanigadda, Guntur 2. The Station House Officer, Koduru Police Station, Guntur District 3. One CC to Sri. Naidu Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Gade Venkateswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra 6. Two CD Copies Pradesh. [OUT] Pmg Vna HIGH COURT DATED: 17/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 1563 OF 2020 o if 0 9 SEP 2025 Co O S^^rent SectiojjX*^ ALLOWING THE CRLP