APHC010357462024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: Mahammaed Huzur Anwar Parveez The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. SURESH KUMAR PUSARLA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5771/2024 Mahammaed Huzur Anwar Parveez ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): SURESH KUMAR PUSARLA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HN, J Crl.P.No.5771_2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 HN, J Crl.P.No.5771_2024 The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.7 in C.C.No.1157 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a friend of Accused No.1, and there were some marital disputes between the 2nd respondent and the 1st accused. It is submitted that on 25.07.2021, the elders of the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent intended to resolve their marital disputes and approached the religious head, namely Khaji, at Durga Nagar, Pendurthy. It is alleged that the 1st accused had abused the 2nd respondent that day after taking the 2nd respondent aside to discuss some issue. Subsequently, it is alleged that the 1st accused physically abused the 2nd respondent, causing harm. The brother of the 2nd respondent was also injured when he tried to intervene in the matter. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner herein was also part of the group of elders who came along with the 1st accused and that the petitioner blamed the 2nd respondent for the marital dispute. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case and filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C.No.1157 of 2022. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from a vague reference to the petitioner in the statements of the witnesses (which indicate that the petitioner accompanied the family members and elders of the 1st 3 HN, J Crl.P.No.5771_2024 accused and blamed the 2nd respondent for the marital dispute), the petitioner cannot be roped in as a co-accused for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the marital disputes between the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent. Apart from accompanying the 1st accused, the petitioner had no role in the incident that occurred on that day at Khaji’s place. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the statements recorded by the investigating officer, which show that there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner that would attract the provisions of Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 6. Though the notice was served on the 2nd respondent, there is no representation for the 2nd respondent. 7. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 8. Perused the record. 9. As seen from the record, there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner to suggest that he is responsible for the commission of the alleged crime. The petitioner has been roped in as a co-accused along with Accused No.1 merely because he is a friend to the 1st accused. The trend of 4 HN, J Crl.P.No.5771_2024 implicating individuals who are unconnected with the marital disputes in false cases is on the rise, and such false implications dilute the intention of beneficial legislation. This is a classic case where the petitioner has been unjustly implicated as an accused without any prima facie evidence. The only “offence” the petitioner has committed, according to the 2nd respondent, is that he is a friend of the 1st accused. On that ground, the 2nd respondent cannot maintain a case against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 10. Considering the submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that contingence of C.C.No.1157 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City, against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C.No.1157 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City, against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 27.03.2025 NKA 5 HN, J Crl.P.No.5771_2024 235 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Criminal Petition No.5771 of 2024 Date: 27.03.2025 NKA