APHC010174332024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2719 np onoA Between: Poreddy Madan Mohan Reddy, S/o Late Suryanarayana Reddy 45yrs Aged about Pragathi Nagar, R/o Flat No. G3, Sunshine Elite Apartment, Hyderabad, Telanagna State ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi 2. Poreddy Sowjanya, W/o Poreddy Sridhar Reddy Aged about 27yrs Thimmapuram village Ediapadu mandal, Guntur District High Court of R/o ...Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C stated in the Memorandum of Grounds i may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.236/2023 on the file pf the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet District to the extent of the petitioner is concerned. praying that in the circumstances of Criminal Petition, the High Court Guntur District, Prakasam W ^ lA NO: 2 OF 2024 __________ Petition is filed under Section 482 of CrP.C praying that in the circun^tances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.236/2023 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet , Guntur District pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Daggubati Venkateswara Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following ORDER: on Rao, 1 % APHC010174332024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2712/2024 Between: 1.POREDDY MADAN MOHAN REDDY, S/0 LATE SURYANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45YRS, R/0 FLAT NO. G3, SUNSHINE ELITE APARTMENT, STATE PRAGATHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD, TELANAGNA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND REP. BY PUBLIC 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT PROSECUTOR AMARAVATHI 2.POREDDY SOWJANYA, W/0 PQREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 27YRS R/0 THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE EDIAPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 Court pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.236/2023 on the file of the Additional Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, Prakasam District lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to dispense with filing of certified copy of the Junior Civil Judge 2 Charge Sheet in C.C.No.236/2023 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. Guntur District lA NO: 2 OF 2094 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 High Court may be pleased to grant stay all further , the , . proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C,No.236/2023 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet , Guntur District criminal petition in the interest of justice. pending disposal of the Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complalnant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.DAGGUBATI VENKATESWARA RAO 3 a% THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2712/2024 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.236 of 2023 pn the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC & Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.3, Sri Daggubati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner 3. herein is the Accused No.3 and he is the brother of Accused No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that investigation is completed in this matter. Charge sheet is also filed, which reveals that the only allegation made against the Accused No.3 is that, despite the respondent No.2 informed about the alleged harassment of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to him, he just supported his brother and mother. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is sheer abuse of process of law, since, he never stayed with Accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 under one roof at any point of time. He is the married ^ brother of accused No.1, residing at Hyderabad. He has nothing to do with the family life of the Accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that there are clear allegations made against the petitioner who is the accused No.3. The matter requires investigation at full length of trial. Learned respondent No.2 finally prays for dismissal of the petition. counsel for the 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State is in attendance and prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations made against the petitioner/accused No.3 is that, despite the respondent No.2 informed about the alleged harassment of the accused Nos. No.3 who is the brother of accused No.1, did not turn on 1 and 2, accused up to her rescue and that he also uttered some words stating that the respondent No.2 did not bring any dowry to the house and they could contract 2^'‘ marriage to their brother. As can be seen from the record except these words in the statement of the respondent No.2 and also in the charge sheet, nothing is alleged in specific against the accused No.3. Accused No.3 is the brother of accused No.1 who stayed separately at Hyderabad. It is not in dispute that he never stayed under one roof along with the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. 5 At this juncture, it is beneficial place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and Another', wherein it is held as follows:: “31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 see 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the an entirely different complainant resided would have complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lai. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants. ” (emphasis supplied) In the light of the discussion and in the backdrop of the legal position referred supra, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC & Sections 3 and 8. ^2024 INSC 953 6 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is a mere abuse of process of law. Hence, the ^ petition deserves quashment. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.236 of 2023 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC & Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 3. One CC to Sri. P Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Daggubati Venkateswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies [OUT] sree n HIGH COURT DATED:25/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 2712 OF 2024 2 8 AUG 2025 front SectioQX^y' ALLOWING THE CRIMIMAL PETITION