1 APHC010166542022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2946/2022 Between: Narapati Mohan and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. D KASI RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2946/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in S.C.No.48 of 2022 on the file of XI Additional District Judge cum Special Court for SC/ST POA Act Cases, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D. Kasi Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a false case has been lodged against the petitioners. They have nothing to do with the present case. Learned counsel would further submit that coming to the case of A2 and A3, they are the parents of A1. Even as per the allegations made in the complaint on the face of it, would show that they have not agreed for the marriage of their son with the complainant. Except that, nothing is attributed against them. Learned counsel would submit that continuing criminal proceedings against A2 and A3 is a mere abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners finally submits that the petition may be disposed of regarding A1 with a liberty to raise all his contentions before the Trial Court in his defence. 3 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 fairly conceded regarding the case against A2 and A3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the petition regarding A1. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also supported the version of the respondent No.2. 6. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the contents of the complaint, the allegations attributed against A2 and A3 are to the effect that because they belong to „velama‟ caste and the complainant i.e., the respondent No.2 belongs to Schedule caste, they have not agreed for the marriage. In that view, continuing criminal proceedings against A2 and A3 who are the parents of the A1 simply on the ground that they have not agreed for the marriage of their son with respondent No.2 is a mere abuse of process of law. 7. In the light of the aforementioned submissions, the petition is partly allowed regarding A2 and A3 and it is dismissed for A1. However, A1 is at liberty to raise all his contentions before the Trial Court in his defence and the learned Trial Judge may appreciate the same and take appropriate decision according to law. 4 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 22.01.2025 UPS 5 144 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2946 of 2022 Dt.22.01.2025 UPS