Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14168 (AP)

Konduru Anantha Raju (A-1) v. Yerraballi Sandhya,

CRLP/3780/2025 · 2025-04-08

Harinath N

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CRL.P. No.3780 of 2025 APHC010174272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3780/2025 Between: Konduru Anantha Raju (a-1) and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND Yerraballi Sandhya and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PATHI SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: 2 CRL.P. No.3780 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.3780 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were arraigned as A.1 to A.3 in Crime No.40 of 2025 of SA Kasinayana Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offence under Section 85, 82(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the complaint of the 2nd respondent. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that the 1stpetitioner (A.1) married A.4 while the marriage between A.1 and the 2ndrespondent was still subsisting. On the grounds of the alleged second marriage, the 2ndrespondent filed a complaint, alleging various offences against the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Nitheen and Others v. State of Kerala1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the relatives of A.1 could not be charged with the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the 2nd petitioner is the mother, and the 3rd petitioner is the sister of A.1. Therefore, they cannot 1SLP 8529 of 2014 3 CRL.P. No.3780 of 2025 be charged with the offence under Section 82(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5. Considering the submissions, the Station House Officer, SA Kasinayana Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, is directed to complete the investigation by following the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 82(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita cannot be made applicable to petitioners 2 and 3 herein. 6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed off. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt.08.04.2025 BV