APHC010205512024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3054 OF 2024 Between: 1. Pulivarthi Jayamma, W/o. Pulivarthi Sai Babu, Aged about 56 Years, At present R/o. D.No 4-191/62/2, NTR Nagar Colony, Road No.3, Nizampet Village, Bachupalli Mandal, Medchal, Malkajigiri District, Telangana - 500090. (A-2) 2. Pulivarthi Sai Babu, S/o. Pulivarthi Sarveswara Lingam (late). Aged about 59 Years, At present R/o. D.No. 4-191/62/2, NTR Nagar Colony, Road No.3, Nizampet Village, Bachupalli Mandal, Medchal, Malkajigiri District, Telangana - 500090. 3. Valluri Purnima, W/o. Naga Babu, Aged about 33 Years, R/o. D.No 7- 22, Sivalayam Street, Peda Tummidi Village, Bantumilli Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 521329. 4. Nalluri Bhuvaneswari @ Bhumi, W/o. Raghuram, Aged about 37 Year R/o. D.No 6-5-31, Fathe Nagar, Moosapet, Rangareddy District, Telangana - 500018. (A-3) (A-4) ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 2 TO 5 r I AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through Penamaluru P.S, High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravati 1. ...RESPONDENT Pulivarthi Naga Ramya, W/o. Pulivarthi Kalyan Kumar, D/o. Jujjavarapu Srinivasa Rao, Aged 22 years. At present R/o. D.No.16-129, S.V.B.P. Road, Kankipadu Village, Krishna District - 521151 ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT Pulivarthi Kalyan Kumar, S/o. Pulivarthi Sai Babu, Aged about 56 Years, At present R/o. D.No.4-191/62, NTR Nagar Colony, Road No.3, Nizampet Village, Telangana-500090 2. 3. Bachupalli Mandal, Medchal, Malkajigiri District ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED N0.1 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the Proceedings in CC No. 5956 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 5 in CC. No. 5956 of 2023 of Penamaluru P.S., Krishna District only in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience; is liable to be quashed in so far as it relates to the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 5. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all Proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 5 in CC No.5956 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada against the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 5 till pending disposal of the above CRLP. r / / : SRI M.VENKATA SAI NIKHIL KASHYAP Counsel for the Petitioners ADVOCATE Counsel for Respondent No.1 : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SRI KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for Respondent No.3 : -- The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010205512024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3054/2024 Between: 1.PULIVARTHI JAYAMMA, (A-2), W/0. PULIVARTHI SAI BABU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AT PRESENT R/0. D.NO 4-191/62/2, NTR NAGAR COLONY, ROAD N0.3, NIZAMPET VILLAGE, BACHUPALLI MANDAL, MEDCHAL, MALKAJIGIRI DISTRICT, TELANGANA - 500090. 2.PULIVARTHI SAI BABU, (A-3), S/0. PULIVARTHI SARVESWARA LINGAM (LATE). AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AT PRESENT R/0. D.NO NTR NAGAR COLONY, ROAD N0.3, NIZAMPET BACHUPALLI MANDAL, MEDCHAL, MALKAJIGIRI 4-191/62/2 VILLAGE, DISTRICT, TELANGANA - 500090. 3.VALLURI PURNIMA, (A-3), W/0. NAGA BABU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/0. D.NO 7-22, SIVALAYAM STREET, PEDA TUMMIDI VILLAGE, BANTUMILLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521329. 4.NALLURI BHUVANESWARI @ BHUMI, (A-4), W/0. RAGHURAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEAR /O. D.NO 6-5-31, FATHE NAGAR, MOOSAPET RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA - 500018. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH PENAMALURU P.S, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2 ^ ArprrJnMT^^^'^^ <^-'> ®'°' PULIVARTHI SAI BABU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,AT PRESENT R/0. _.. COLONY, ROAD N0.3, NIZAMPET VILLAGE MANDAL, MEDCHAL, MALKAJIGIRI DISTRICT, D.NO NTR NAGAR BACHUPALLI TELANGANA-500090 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of RN99 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to call for fte records relating to the Proceedings in CC No. 5956 of 2023 on the file of II AddI Chfef Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District and quash the 20°2?of'P ^ ‘d® f'®‘'‘'°"®r®'Accused No. 2 to 5 in CC. No. 5956 of 2023 of Penamaluru P.S., Krishna District only in the interests of justice ZpetT M be quashed in so far as it relates to the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 5 and thus ti I I render justice i lA NO: 1 OF 207/1 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the ircurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with the filing certified copies of Records in CC No. 5956 of 2023 on the file of II AddI Chief Sast such °f the above CRLP lA NO: 2 OF 9n9A Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the High"'couri?h " ''I of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the ^ b® P'sased to Stay of all Proceedings CC No 50^ "/Too®' ^PP®P''®"®® °f ‘b® Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to st CC No.5956 of 2023 on the file of II AddI Chief Metropolitan Magistrate .hrarveCRrp'?n'd?ars1u:h""'"“^^^^ ^ ^'^bosal of Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): of i is at / 3 1.M VENKATA SAI NiKHIL KASHYAP Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S): 1.KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) / ' 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3054/2024 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.5956 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, Krishna District for the offences punishable under Section 498 A of IPC. Heard Sri, learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5, 2. Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, 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 petitioners would submit that petitioners herein 3. are the Accused Nos. 2 to 5, i.e., the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the mother and father of the Accused No.1 respectively and the petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 are the sisters of the Accused No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that after the marriage, the respondent No.2 stayed with Accused No.1 only for few months. Learned counsel would submit that except making omnibus allegations, nothing is attributed against the petitioners in specific. Learned counsel would further submit that only as an arm-twist, this case has been lodged against the family members. Even as per the contents of the 5 complaint, the only allegation encouraged and joined the made against the petitioners is that they harassing the accused No. 1/husband complainant. It i while •s also alleged that the respondent No.2/defacto harassed the defacto potitioners mentally by using abusive the offence complainant physically there against the petitioners •S mere abuse of process and words. Except that Section 498A against them i are no imgredients to attract under and continuing criminal proceedings of law. 4- Per contra, learned there are counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that Learned harassed the specific allegations counsel would further made against the submit that the Petitioners/A2 to A5. accused No. 1/husband defacto complainant demanding additional dowry and the petitioners herein also joined in harassing the defacto complainant. Learned counsel would cognizance for the offences 's not a fit case for further submit that learned Magistrate has taken under Section 498A against all the petitioners and it i quashment. Learned dismissal of the counsel for the respondent No.2 finally prays for petition. Determination by the Court: A bare perusal of Section inherent orders as 482 makes it clear that are not limited the Code envisages that or affected powers of the High Court so as to make under the Code may be necessary; (i) to gf to prevent abuse of the gtvo effect to any order process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to jurisdiction i justice. A court while si court of appeal secure ends of 's not functioning exercise its powers to do sitting in Section 482 i or a court of revision. as a ILmust real and I ./ ' 6 r •* substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 6. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State ofBihar\ held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A iPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prime facie case is made out against them. ***** 22.Therefore, upon consideration of the reievant circumstances and in the absence of any specific roie attributed to the accused appeiiants, it wouid be unjust if the Appeiiants are forced to go through the tribuiations of a triai, i.e., generai and omnibus aiiegations cannot manifest in a situation where the reiatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo triai. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instance that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. ” 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 141 7 • # ,>■ (emphasis supplied) 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court i another^ highlighted the and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant the present case highlighting the duty of this follows; in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and requirement of taking the realities into consideration and 86 of the observations made in the context of Court, in the said judgment is as “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on general and sweeping allegations without bringing any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The some on record court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out. prime facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. ” (emphasis supplied) In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another^, the Hon'ble Courtheld as follows:: 8. Supreme The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurize ^ 2024 INSC 369 ^2024 INSC 896 /,/ V. ■ 8 the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions. ” (emphasis supplied) 9. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and Another"^, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:: “37. 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 complainant resided would have an entirely different 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. ” I (emphasis supplied) “2024 INSC 953 9 To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present In the contents of the 10. complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. In the backdrop of legal position referred supra, the case of the petitioners has to be scrutinized with great care and caution of factual aspects of the matter. 11. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 who are the family members of the husband is mere abuse of process of law, in absence of the specific allegations attributed against them. 12. In that view of the matter, the Criminal petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 in C.C.No.5956 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, Krishna District for the offences punishable under Section 498 A of IPC, is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous SD/- B.PRASADARAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District ! ■ Is « 2 The Station House Officer. Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District Venkata Sai Nikhil Kashyap, Advocate [OPUC] Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi ili 3. One CC to Sri. M. 4. OneCCto Sri L 5. Two GO’S to the Public Prosecutor i; J !■ [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies I ' ■ GPC TAG 'If # f •’'V • 1 i \ Is ii ! s i HIGH COURT DATED: 19/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 3054 OF 2024 O’ ^ 1! SEP 2025 m Currenl Section ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION