APHC010139752022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 8594/2022 Between: Boppana Surendra ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VANGALA SAILAJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent registered Crime No. 280 of 2019 on the file of Pattabhi Puram Police Station without any basis and solely on the strength of a perverse complaint lodged by the 4th respondent. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner is the son-in-law of the 4th respondent, and that the marriage between the petitioner and his wife was dissolved by a Superior Court of California. The petitioner's wife had earlier filed Crime No. 266 of 2014 for the alleged offence under 2 Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and after investigation, the same was taken on file as C.C. No. 698 of 2014. 2. After the trial, the accused therein was acquitted vide judgment dated 31.12.2018. The wife of the petitioner claimed that the divorce granted by the Superior Court of California was not binding on her. Thereafter, the petitioner filed F.C.O.P. No. 220 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Court, Guntur, seeking dissolution of marriage. The said F.C.O.P. was dismissed, and the trial Court held that the divorce granted by the Superior Court of California was executable in India. 3. The 4th respondent filed another complaint against the petitioner vide Crime No. 230 of 2019, and the petitioner filed Crl.P. No. 7318 of 2019. This Court quashed the said crime on 22.01.2020. Thereafter, the 4th respondent filed another complaint, which was registered as Crime No. 280 of 2019 on the file of the 3rd respondent police station. The 4th respondent has claimed that her daughter was harassed by the petitioner and filed a case under Section 498-A IPC against him. It is also submitted that the 4th respondent has been persistently following up with the 3rd respondent for issuance of a Lookout Circular against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of Crime No. 280 of 2019 under Section 419 IPC and Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 against the petitioner, without any cause of action, is illogical and amounts to harassment. 3 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the police have closed the investigation after not finding any adverse or incriminating material against the petitioner. It is also denied that the police received any request from the 4th respondent for issuance of a Lookout Circular. The allegation that the petitioner created fake IDs and disturbed the peace of the 4th respondent’s daughter was not elicited during the course of investigation by the police. 6. Considering the allegations and counter-allegations against the petitioner since the year 2014, the registration of another crime against the petitioner without any basis was rightly dealt with by the 3rd respondent. Upon investigation, it was concluded that no incriminating material was found against the petitioner, and no purpose would be served by keeping the crime pending on the file of the 3rd respondent police station. For these reasons, Crime No. 280 of 2019 on the file of the 3rd respondent police station is hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 27.03.2025 PNS 4