IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINALPETITIONNO: 172 OF 2022 Between: E. Jyothi, W/o SR Shreenivasa, Aged 41 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Gowribidanuru Taluk, Veerandahalli, Ward No.2, Chikkaballapur, Karnataka-561208. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent 2. Kunkuma Sridevi, W/o. Gangaraju, Aged 38 years, R/o. Sharadanagar, Ananthapuram Town, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent/De-facto Complainant 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 quash the criminal proceedings against Petitioners/Accused No.2 in CC No.234 of 2020 in Cr.12 of 2020 on the file of Hon ble Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 494 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code as they are lacking merits and substance and .P^ss^ such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the .^circumstances of the case Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated: 07/08/2024 in I.A. No.1 of 2024 in CrI.P. No. 172 of 2022. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 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 all proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.234 of 2020 in Cr.No.12 of 2020, on the file of Hon’ble Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 494 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, pending disposal of the above criminal petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated: 07/08/2024 in I.A. No.1 of 2024 in CrI.P. No. 172 of 2022. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Arun Showri G, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. on The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010002362022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 172/2022 Between: 1.E.JYOTHI, W/0 SR SHREENIVASA.AGED 41 YEARS,OCC.HOUSE WIFE,R/0 GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK,VEERANDAHALLI,WARD N0.2CH IKKABALLAPUR, KARNATAKA-561208 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2.KUNKUMA SRIDEVI, W/0 GABGARAHYM,AGED 38 YEARS,R/0 SHARADANAGAR.ANANTHAPURAM TOWN,ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused; 1.ARUNSHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S); 1.HARISH KUMAR RASINENI 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in C.C.No.234 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu for the offences 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code^. Heard G.Arun Showri, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Harish 2. Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a 3. married woman having two children and she has been residing in Karnataka. It is alleged that Accused No.1 has objectionable relationship with the Petitioner even prior to his marriage with Respondent No.2 and at the instance of his parents, he continued his relation and put up a family at Goribidanur and are living as husband and wife. Learned counsel would further submit that except using the word ‘second marriage’ there is no legally admissible evidence to prove the alleged second marriage between Accused No.1 and the Petitioner/Accused No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner/Accused No.2 is not a relative of Accused No.1 and the photographs filed by them would show the Petitioner along with her husband and children. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner are false. It is submitted that, since the Petitioner is not a family member of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2, the offence under Section 498-A does not attract against the Petitioner. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed 2 for short IPC’ 3 reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.Subash Babu vs. State of A.P. and another^ and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in B.Parvathi vs. State of A.P., and others'^. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations and amply evidence to prove that Accused No.1 had contracted second marriage with the Petitioner/Accused No.2. Learned counsel fairly conceded that Section 494 I PC does not attract against the Petitioner, since there is no evidence of the alleged second marriage. Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 in C.C.No.234 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu? Determination by the Court 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and ' (2011)7 see 616 " iVIANU/AP/0072/2020 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. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must 7. be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others® is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. ® AIR 1992 SC 604 (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) It is alleged in the complaint that, prior to the marriage of Respondent 8. No.2 with Accused No.1, he used to love Petitioner/Accused No.2 and after the marriage also, he continued illegal relationship with the Petitioner and has been harassing Respondent No.2 both physically and mentally. When 6 Respondent No.2 questioned Accused No.1 about the same, he increased his harassment. Subsequently, at the instance of his parents. Accused No.1 married Petitioner/Accused No.2 and put up family at Goribidanuru. There is no dispute that the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is no way related to the family of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. This Court in Venkata Naga Malleswari Anamaripudi v. State of A.P., ® observed that Section 498-A of I.P.C., is.a powerful weapon engrafted by the law, to the rescue of a married woman, who is subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or by the relative of husband. Further, this Court having referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in U. Suvetha v. State^, interpreted the term “relative” as appearing in Section 498-A of I.P.C. to mean persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. 9. In the case on hand, since the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is not a relative of the husband of Respondent No.2, the offence under Section 498-A IPC cannot be attributed against her. Further, as fairly conceded by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, since there is no admissible evidence to prove that the Petitioner/Accused No.2 married Accused No.1 during the subsistence of the marriage between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 the ingredients of Section 494 IPC do not attract against the Therefore, in view of the guideline No.1 in Petitioner/Accused No.2. Bhajanlal’s case {supra), the allegations made in the FIR or complaint do not ^ 2023 see OnLine AP 4319 ’ (2009) 3 see (eri) 36 disclose the commission of the alleged offences against the Petitioner/Accused No.2. In view of the foregoing discussion and the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the opinion that, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 10. 494 read with 34 I PC. 11. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.234 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 read with 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First' 2. One CC to Sri Arun Shown G., Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies Class, Ananthapuramu. of Andhra Pradesh at Chp sree \, HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 V f fy t I I •V ORDER CRLP.No.172 of 2022 I 2 8 FPR ?n?'; I ^ . Curreiti oecuon . •P II MM ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION