IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5860 OF 2022 Between: 1. Bella Rajeswari, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 52 years, Occ House wife, R/o H.No.2-87, Ainampudi, Krishna District. 2. Bella Venkateswara Rao, S/o Gowthu, aged 54 years, R/o H.No.2-87 Ainampudi, Krishna District. 3. Kosuri Nagamani, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged 46 years, Occ House wife, R/o H.No.66-3-8/1, Darsipeta, Patamata, Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna District. 4. Kosuri Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkata Narayana, aged 50 years, R/o H.No.66-3-8/1, Darsipeta, Patamata, Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna District. 5. Kondeti Sunitha, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged 45 years, Occ House wife R/o H.No.2-59, Manthena, Krishna District. 6. Kondeti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 47 years, R/o H.No.2-59, Manthena, Krishna District. ...Petitioners/A2 TO a7 AND \ € Rep. by its public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Amaravathi, through Kankipadu P.S., Vijayawada City. 1. The State ofA.P. ) ) i ■; .. ‘a. ...Respondent/State 2. Veeranki Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Satya Sai Babu, aged 45 years, R/o Manthena Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District ...Respondent/Defact-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 call for the records and to uash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC.No.7089 of 2019, on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada City. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, he High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in CC.No. 7089 of 2019, on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MSVS SUDHA RANI, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010389882022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY [3396] TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5860/2022 Between; 1.BOLLA RAJESWARI, W/0 VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, DISTRICT. 2.BOLLA VENKATESWARA RAO, SIO GOWTHU, AGED 54 YEARS, R/0 H.NO.2-87, AINAMPUDI, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.KOSURI NAGAMANI, W/0 SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0 H.NO.66-3-8/1 VIJAYAWADA (URBAN), KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4.KOSURI SRINIVASA RAO, S/0 VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED 50 YEARS, R/0 H.NO.66-3-8/1, DARSIPETA, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA (URBAN), KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5.KONDETI SUNITHA, W/0 SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0 H.NO.2-59, MANTHENA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6.KONDETI SRINIVASA RAO, S/0 VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 47 YEARS, R/0 H.NO.2-59, MANTHENA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) R/0 H.NO.2-87, AINAMPUDI, KRISHNA DARSIPETA, PATAMATA, AND 1.THE STATE OF A P, , Rep. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATHI, THROUGH KANKIPADU P.S., VIJAYAWADA CITY. 2. VEERANKI VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O.VENKATA SATYA SAI BABU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/0.MANTHENA VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANUAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S): 1.MSVS SUDHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.7089 of 2019 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada City for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code^. Petitioner Nos.1, 3, 5/Accused Nos.2, 4, 6 are the sisters and Petitioner 2. Nos.2, 4, 6/Accused Nos.3, 5, 7 are the brothers-in-law of Accused No.1 respectively. Heard Ms.M.S.V.S.Sudha Rani, learned counsel for the Petitioners and 3. learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for State/Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the allegations 4. made against the Petitioners are bald and omnibus. Learned counsel would submit that Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 the Police could not make out any case against the Petitioners. It is submitted that no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioners, as such, continuation of proceedingsagainst them is an abuse of process of law. 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short “IPC’ 3 Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that there 5. are specific allegations against the Petitioners for the commission of the alleged offence. The veracity of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both 6. 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 Nos. 2 to 7 in C.C.No. 7089 of 2019 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada City? Determination by the Court A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 7. 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 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. As S66n from th© complaint, wherein, it is alleged that, the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 was performed on 03.07.1996 and during wedlock they were blessed with a male child. Thereafter, Accused No.1 started harassing by subjecting her to both physical and mental cruelty. 8. Unbearable with the said harassment. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with Kankipadu Police in the year 2002, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 169 of 2002. During pendency of the said case, as Accused No.1 assured to look after Respondent No.2 well, the said case was dismissed. Subsequently, Accused No.1 led marital life with Respondent No.2 happily for period. After the death of the father of Accused No.1 in the year 2011, continued his harassment at the instigation of the some Accused No.1 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7. As such, she lodged the present complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 7. 9. A bare perusal of the complaint as well as the charge sheet would reveal that except a casual reference of the names of the Petitioners alleging that they instigated Accused No.1 to harass Respondent No.2, there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed against Petitioners, who is the husband of All the allegations are raised against Accused No.1 Respondent No.2. It is not the case of Respondent No.2 that she along with all the Petitioners resided under one roof. Admittedly, Petitioner Nos.1, 3, 5/Accused Nos.2, 4, 6 are the married sisters and they have been residing with their respective spouses, who are Petitioner Nos.2, 4, 6/Accused Nos.3, Mere allegation that Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7, after the death of 5, 7. the father-in-law of Respondent No.2, instigated Accused No.1 to harass Respondent No.2 with a view to enjoy her property, would not amount to the commission of the alleged offence by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7. There are no specific allegations against the Petitioners to prima facie attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kans Raj v. State Of Punjab^, wherein, it was held as follows:- 10. “For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case. (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another^ highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is 11. as follows; 3 AIR 2000 SC ^3.24 “ 2024 INSC 369 “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the compiaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. ” (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Apex Court in Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and Another®, held as follows: 12. “The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions. It appears that in the case on hand despite raising of specific contentions which require deeper consideration, may be taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the complainant that the challan was presented and the matter stood listed for framing charges and hence, it would be open to accused No. 5 to raise all plea at the time of framing of the charges, the Court refrained itself from considering the contentions raised against accused No. 5." In view of the above discussion and the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the view that, as there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7, continuation of criminal 13. proceedings against them is a sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5 SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022, dated 26.11.2024 t k 7 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 in C.C.No.7089 of 2019 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada City for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrae, Visakhapatnam City. 2. One CC to M/s. MSVS Sudha Rani, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 4. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5860 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION