APHC010201532022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3296 of 2022 Between: Dronam Sasikala, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. CH VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioners/A.2 to A.5, seeking quashment of the Proceedings against them in CC No.253 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile, Ananthapuramu, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State. Notice sent to respondent No.2 is refused. Perused the material on record. 1. For short ‘the Code’ 2 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the marriage of the respondent No.2/de facto Complainant was performed with A.1 at Sree Jaini Kambaiah Kalyanamandapam, Tadipatri in the presence of elders. Further, at the time of marriage, A.1 to A.5 took Rs.30,000/- and four tulas gold ornaments towards dowry. After marriage, respondent No.2 and A.1 lived happily for some time at Dinakar Nagar, West Venkatapuramu, Secunderabad and they blessed with one son and one daughter. Further, A.1 to A.5 subjected respondent No.2 both physically and mentally to bring additional dowry and due to unbearable harassment, respondent No.2 came back to her parents’ house. Basing on the complaint given by respondent No.2, Police registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2021 of III Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu and after completion of investigation, Police filed Charge Sheet against A.1 to A.5. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioners 1 and 4/A.2 and A.5 are sisters of A.1 and Petitioners 2 and 3 /A.3 and A.4 are brother-in-laws of A.1. Further, Petitioners never lived under one roof along with the respondent No.2 and A.1. As per the material on record, no evidence is placed attracting the offences lodged against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that except bald and omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed against them. Seeking quashment of the case against the Petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that the presence of the Petitioners may be dispensing with before the Trial Court and the Criminal 3 Petition may be disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner to raise such contentions before the Trial Court in defence. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. Considering the submissions made, the Criminal Petition is disposed of and the Petitioners/A.2 to A.5 is at liberty to raise the present contentions before the Trial Court in their defence. However, the presence of the Petitioners/A.2 to A.5 before the Trial Court is dispensed with, except on the specific dates as directed by the Trial Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No. 3296 of 2022 04.02.2025 Mjl /*