APHC010208072023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3085/2023 Between: BALLEM RAMESH BABU, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O 5-3-418/46, SESHADRI NAGAR, COMMUNITY HALL BACK SIDE, KUKATPALLY, MEDCHAL, MALKAJGIRI, TELANGANA-500072. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT., THROUGH SHO, TADIPATHRI RURAL POLICE STATION, AANTHAPURAM DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. ONTEDDU JYOTHI, W/O D KIRAN KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, RIO SAJJALADINNE VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515411. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. CHALASANI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.92 of 2023 on the file of Tadipathri Rural 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Police Station, Ananthapuramu District registered for the offences under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.2 would submit that, the proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be instituted against the Petitioner, who is the friend of Accused No.1, since he is not a family member. However, the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present crime for the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is an abuse of process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offences. The veracity of the said allegations will be revealed during investigation. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 5. For the purpose of constituting an offense under the Section 498-A IPC, the ingredients thereon must be existing. In the case on hand, in the complaint, it is alleged that the Petitioner/Accused No.2, who is the friend of Accused No.1 along with the younger brother of Accused No.1 threatened Respondent No.2 to perform another marriage to Accused No.1 if she does not bring additional dowry. As contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, except the above bald allegation, there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner, which would attract the alleged offences against him. Since the Petitioner is the friend of Accused No.1, invoking Section 498-A I.P.C. against him is unwarranted. 3 6. It is pertinent to state that, Section 498-A of I.P.C. is a powerful weapon engrafted by the law, to the rescue of a married woman, subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or by the relative of husband. The Hon’ble Apex Court in U. Suvetha v. State2, interpreted the term “relative” as appearing in Section 498A of I.P.C., in the following terms: “9. The word “cruelty” having been defined in terms of the aforesaid Explanation, no other meaning can be attributed thereto. Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion, would not attract the wrath of Section 498-A of the Penal Code. An offence in terms of the said provision is committed by the persons specified therein. They have to be the “husband” or his “relative”. Either the husband of the woman or his relative must have subjected her to cruelty within the aforementioned provision. If the appellant had not (sic) been instigating the husband of the first informant to torture her, as has been noticed by the High Court, the husband would be committing some offence punishable under the other provisions of the Penal Code and the appellant may be held guilty for abetment of commission of such an offence but not an offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. 10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term “relative” must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word “relative” would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. ***** 13. Furthermore, Section 498-A is a penal one. It, thus, deserves strict construction. Ordinarily, save and except where a contextual meaning is required to be given to a statute, a penal provision is required to be construed strictly. This Court in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [(2007) 7 SCC 162 : (2007) 8 Scale 354] held as under: (SCC p. 168, para 17) “17. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the more stringent is the law, more strict construction thereof would be necessary. Even when the burden is required to be discharged by an assessee, it would not be as heavy as on the prosecution. (See P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala [1995 Supp (2) SCC 187 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 466] .)” (Emphasis supplied) 2 (2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 36 4 7. The allegations made in the complaint do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to supra, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is an abuse of process of law and hence, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed. 8. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime No.92 of 2023 on the file of Tadipathri Rural Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:28.08.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3085 of 2023 Dt.28.08.2025 Dinesh