I' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4404 OF 2022 Between: Chandra Surekha, D/o. Chandra Venkataswamy, Age about 54 years, Occ- Teacher, R/o. Virat Nagar, Vinjamaru Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District-524228. ...Petitioner/accused No.7 AND 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. AT Amaravathi. 2. Annam Hari Teji, W/o. Darapaneni Vivek, Aged 30 years, Occ- Private Employee, R/o. Plot No. 505, S.R. Home, 5th Street, Harinadhapuram, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondent/Defacto-Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to and i . connection with Crime (FIR) No. 26 of 2022 of Disha Women Police Station, SPSR Nellore District and quash the same insofar as petitioner is concerned praying that in the in f i *■ n- 7 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ROSEDAR SRA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri T. C Krishnan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 r The Court made the following Order: 3 APHC010295412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WM [3396] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4404 OF 2022 Between: Chandra Surekha, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.ROSEDAR SRA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.TCKRISHNAN 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Mr.Rosedar SRA, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/ State and Mr. T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.7, who is not relative of the husband. Learned counsel •—t further submitted that she is a colleague to the father of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. She never resided with Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 under the same roof at any point of time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no allegations made against her to attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IRC and she is not a beneficiary to attract the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned counsel would submit that except making allegation that she used to call the respondent No.2 over a phone and used to threaten them to oblige the demand for additional dowry made by the husband and in-laws. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “U.Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police"\ 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner herein is the maternal aunt of Accused No.1 and there are clear allegations made against her that she used to harass the Respondent No.2 and threatened her parents for additional dowry. 6. The contentions made in the present petition are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in this matter. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1/ State supported the version of Respondent No‘.2. ^ (2009)6 see 757 8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to file an Affidavit to say that she is not relative of the husband. 9. Considering the submissions made by both counsel and on clear look at the information, which is furnished to the Police, on which Crime has been registered would show that she is maternal aunt of Accused No.1 and she used to threaten the parents of Respondent No.2 to oblige the demands of the husband and in-laws for additional dowry. 10. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the contentions made in the present petition are disputed questions of fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued on the point that she is related to Accused No.1. On the other hand, on instructions, learned no way counsel for the Respondent No.2 would submit that she is close relative of the husband. When disputed questions of fact are before the Court, exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of the case is not tenable. That apart, verifiable material is required to decide the issue of j relationship in the present matter. 11. Viewed from any angle, the petition is devoid of any merit. Further, it left open to the petitioner to raise such contentions before the trial Court and place any material to that effect, so that the learned Trial Judge may appreciate and take appropriate decision over the matter. In case, the petitioner is found to be an outsider, but not relative of the husband on factual IS aspects of the matter, the learned Trial Judge may take appropriate decision. This Court makes it clear that this Court has not given any opinion touching the merits of the case, since the very nature of relationship of the present petitioner with Accused No.1 is in dispute. In that view, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Criminal Petition. However, the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with, unless her presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court. Further, it is left open to the Trial Court to examine the factual aspects, which was referred before this Court and take decision at the end of trial. 12. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Disha Women Police Station, SPSR Nellore District 2. One CC to Sri. Rosedar SRA ,Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to T.C.Krishnan, Advocate.[OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 5. Three CD Copies YM vna w \ HIGH COURT DATED:27/01/2025 ORDER 0 7 m 7m ® CRLP.No.4404 of 2022 Cr> ^ ^ CurrMu wtfbuun . ^ DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION