Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28358 (AP)

GUNTUBOYINA ANURADHA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

CRLP/5961/2023 · 2025-03-19

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 HN, J Crl.P.No.5961_2023 APHC010403592023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5961/2023 Between: Guntuboyina Anuradha and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. REGULAGADDA VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 HN, J Crl.P.No.5961_2023 The Court made the following Order: 1. The petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in C.C.No.2274 of 2022, on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the Accused No.1, and the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the sisters of the Accused No.1. It is submitted that the marriage of the respondent No.3 and the Accused No.1 was performed on 20.08.2013. Following their marriage, Accused No.1 and Respondent No.3 set up their family in Hyderabad, while Petitioner No.1 was staying at Visakhapatnam. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, after their own marriages, were staying away from the family of the Accused No.1 and the Respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 was staying at Bangalore after her marriage. Petitioner No.3 was staying in Visakhapatnam after her marriage, away from where Petitioner No.1 was residing. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, except for vague and baseless allegations, there are no allegations that would connect the petitioners with the alleged offence. It is submitted that Petitioner No.1, who is about 70 years old, is now exposed to trial. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even as per the statements recorded, except for vague allegations against Petitioner No.1, there are no specific allegations. The statements of the listed witnesses also do not indicate that the petitioners have committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. The allegations mostly 3 HN, J Crl.P.No.5961_2023 revolve around Accused No.1. However, this Court is not dealing with the quash petition filed by Accused No.1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the tendency to implicate the relatives of the husband in cases registered under Section 498-A and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, has become a regular feature, and the relatives, who are unconnected with the family issues of the complainant and her husband, are made to suffer without any valid reason. 5. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the matters of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand 1 and another and Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2. 6. Though the notice is served on Respondent No.3, there is no representation for Respondent No.3. 7. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 8. Except for the vague allegations that the petitioners harassed the de facto complainant, there are no details regarding the same. 9. Perusal of the statements of the listed witnesses reveals that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and cannot construed as an offence under Section 498-A. The contents of the statements do not disclose 1 2010 6 Supreme 312 ; 2010 0 Supreme (SC) 738 2 2012 7 Supreme 667 ; 2012 0 Supreme (SC) 743 4 HN, J Crl.P.No.5961_2023 any specific allegation against the petitioners, other than a casual reference to their involvement in harassing the complainant. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the facts of the case warrant interference, and in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court is inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly, C.C.No.2274 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioners are hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 19.03.2025 NKA 5 HN, J Crl.P.No.5961_2023 255 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.5961 of 2023 Date: 19.03.2025 NKA