APHC010192122022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3136/2022 Between: 1. YEGGONI PITCHAIAH, S/O. BALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. AUTO DRIVER, R/O.DOOR NO.10-18, MARY PRIYA NAGAR, GORANTLA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. SALOMI YEGGOMI, W/O.PITCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE IN INDIAN TOBACCO BOARD, PODILI, RIO. TAILORS COLONY, PODILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P V N KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.256 of 2020 on the file of Guduru Rural Police Station, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2 2. Heard Sri P.V.N.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Notice which was sent to Respondent No.2, was returned as “insufficient address”. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the husband of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner himself filed D.O.P.No.41 of 2017 against Respondent No.2 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Guntur seeking divorce. Learned counsel would further submit that, even as per the contents of the complaint, Respondent No.2 has been residing separately for the last five years immediately preceding to lodging of the present complaint. Learned counsel would further submit that the above divorce petition was dismissed and against the same, the Petitioner herein preferred an appeal and the same is pending. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no allegations in the complaint regarding the dowry harassment and hence, the offence under Section 498-A IPC has no application to the present set of facts. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that it is not a fit case for quashment and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the contents of the complaint, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 has been residing separately for the last five years preceding to the 3 lodging of the present case. The fact remains, the Petitioner moved petition for divorce which was dismissed and the appeal against the same is pending before the competent Court. The contents of the complaint prima facie attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC against the Petitioner. Under those circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for quashment. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:24.01.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3136 of 2022 Dt.24.01.2025 Dinesh