I \PHC010357732024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5759 OF 2024 Between: 1. Vankayala Saroja, W/o. Sathyanarayana Sastri, Aged 62 years, R/o. Flat No. 101, Sri Brundavanam Apartments, Beside Chayminar, Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500089. 2. Vankayala Sathyanarayana Sastri, S/o. late. Lakshmana Mahadev, Aged 64 years, R/o. Flat No. 101, Sri Brundavanam Apartments, Beside Chayminar, Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500089. 3. Vankayala Vijaya Lakshmi Srujana, D/o. Sathyanarayana Sastri, Aged Sri Brundavanam Apartments, Beside 31 years, R/o. Flat No. 101 Chayminar, Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500089. ...Petitioners No. 1, 2, & 3 AND 1. The State, through the Station House Officer (SHO), Balaji Nagar Police Station, Nellore, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...Respondent 2. Ravuru Susmitha, W/o. Vankayala Anil Kumar, Aged 32 years, R/o. D.No.27-10-552, Saraswathi Nagar, NTR Nagar, Nellore City. ...Respondent/Defacto 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 entire proceedings in C.C.No.2092/2023 against the petitioners on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of first class Nellore. 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 in C.C.No.2092/2023 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nellore pending disposal of the main petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Nikhil Chowdary Guntupalli Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, A.P. Counsel for Respondent No.2: Y.L. Siva Kalpana Reddy The Court made the following order: High Court of APHC010357732024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N rpiMlNlAL PETITION NO: 5759/2024 [3457] 0E0 I 0 Between: -1 \/amkaYALA SAROJA W/0. sathyanarayana sastri, AGE^62 YEArT R/0. FLAT NO. 101, SRI BRUNDAVANAM apartments, beside. CHAYMINAR, MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD - 500089 9 vankayala sathyanarayana sastri LAKSHMANA MAHADEV, AGED bESIDE 101 SRI BRUNDAVANAM APARTMENTS, BESID CHAYMINAR MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD - 500089. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) S/0. LATE. D/0. AND . TUP c^TATF THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICESHO PUBUC TrosecStoI. IIonou'IraTle'^Ih^c^ of ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. NAGAR, NELLORE CITY. ...RESP0NDENT/C0MPLAINANT(S): ■ 0 II2II the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2092/2023 against the petitioners on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of first class Nellore lANO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of Cr.No,2092/2023, on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. before this Honourable Court and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 in C.C.No.2092/2023 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore pending disposal of the main petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.NIKHIL CHOWDARYGUNTUPALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1 .Y L SIVA KALPANA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CRIMINAL PETITION No.5759 of 2024 ORDER: 1. The petitioners are seeking quash of CC.No.2092 of 2023 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and are facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of I PC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of accused No.1 and petitioner No.3 is a sister of accused No.1. it is submitted that the accused No.1 and the 2'^'^ respondent were married on 09.11.2019 at Nellore. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that at the time of marriage the 2"^^ respondent’s brother paid dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- in cash apart from gold and other gifts. An amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was expended towards marriage expenses. After marriage the accused No.1 and 2'^'^ respondent set up family at Hyderabad. 4. It is also alleged that after two months of marriage, the petitioners visited the house of accused No.1 and the 2^^ respondent and stayed for about two months and that during their stay, the petitioners had instigated the accused No.1 to ill- treat the 2"'^ respondent. 5. It is also alleged that the petitioners stated that the 2'^'^ respondent was a mismatch to accused No.1 and that they could have got more dowry had accused No.1 not married the 2"^^ respondent. It is also alleged that accused No.1 used to harass the 2'"'^ respondent both physically and mentally and was also assaulting the respondent. 6. It is also alleged that the neighbours used to intervene when the accused No.1 was physically assaulting the 2'''' respondent and that on one occasion the LW.4 along with her husband intervened the physical assault of accused No.1 to the 2"'* respondent and that the 2"^ respondent was given shelter in the house of LW.4 till the 2"'“ respondent shifted to her relatives house along with the minor child. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that except for the statement that the petitioners stayed for a period of two months along with accused No.1 and the 2'"'' respondent, there other allegations which could attract provisions of Section 498-A are no IPC or Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner No.3 is unconnected with the marital disputes between accused No.1 and the 2'"'^ respondent except for a vague reference to the 3’'^ petitioner regarding her alleged taunting the respondent, there is no other specific allegation against 3'"'’ petitioner. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the 2'"'^ respondent submits that the listed witnesses 4 and 5 are independent witnesses and there is a specific allegation against the petitioners with regard to demand of dowry. It is also submitted that the petitioners instigated the accused No.1 to harass the 2"'^ respondent and that the petitioners were responsible for the accused No.1 harassing the 2"'^ respondent. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2'^'^ respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state. Perused the material available on record. 11.LW.1 is the defacto-complainant, LW.2 is the brother of the defacto-complainant, LW.3 is the mother of LW.1 and LW.4 is the neighbor of LW.1 and LW.5 is the relative of LW.1. The statements of listed witnesses do not reveal any specific allegations against the petitioner No.3. The allegations against the petitioners 1 and 2 would have to be tested in trial when the matter is taken up for trial. In so far as, allegations against the 3"'^ petitioner is concerned the allegations are vague and omnibus. In absence of any specific allegations against the 3'''^ petitioner no purpose would be served in relating the matter for trial for the 3'"'^ petitioner. 12. The 3"'^ petitioner is the sister of accused No.1 and none of the witnesses speak about her involvement or instigation in commission of any of the offences. She being the sibling of accused No.1 has been roped in as a co-accused along with others. The complaint, charge sheet and the statements would definitely indicate allegations against accused Nos.1 and 3. As such, this Court is of the considered view that the case against the 3 petitioner can be quashed in absence of any specific allegations. 13. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed in-part. CC.No.2092 of 2023 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore is hereby quashed in so far as 3'“^ petitioner. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR s^- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. The Station House Officer (SHO), Balaji Nagar Police Station, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 3. One CC to Sri Nikhil Chowdary Guntupalli, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Y.L.Siva Kalpana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies GPC (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED: 20/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 5759 OF 2024 i n SEP m g ^ . Current Section .y// PARTLY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION