APHC010429552019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 62/2020 Between: 1. BANDI BALA SURESH, S/O NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,/ OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, PRESENTLY WORKING AT BANGALORE, R/O. D.NO.L-5-3511, KARRIVARI STREET, KONDAIAH PALEM, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRIU, A.P. 2. BANDI NARAYANA RAO, S/O NOOKANJU. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC.RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.1-5- 35/1,KARRIVARI STREET, KONDAIAH PALEM,KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P 3. BANDI JAYALAKSHMI, W/O BANDI NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEAR. OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.1-5-35/1, KARRIVARI STREET, KONDAIAH PALEM, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOY AT HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI, THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, A.P. 2. BANDI KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI JYOTHI, W/O. BANDI BALA SURESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 2-304/1, ADARSHNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 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 be pleased to quash the Charges Sheet No. 136/2017 dt.04-11-2016 in Crime No. 124/2016 dt.21-10-2016 of women Police station, Visakhapatnam city Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA 2 Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. VENKAT CHALLA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This instant Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners seeking the following relief: “ ... be pleased to quash the Charges Sheet No.136/2017 dt.04.11.2016 in Crime No.124/2016 dt.21.10.2016 of women Police station Visakhapatnam city” 2. Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 -State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the marriage of respondent No.2 with Petitioner No.1/A.1 took place on 07.06.2015. Respondent No.2 had a love affair with somebody else prior to the marriage and the marriage of respondent No.2 was forcibly performed with Petitioner No.1/A.1 by her parents and that their marriage was not solemnised. Learned counsel would submit that after marriage, they put up a separate family at Bangalore and Petitioner No.1 /A.1 filed FCOP No.711 of 2016 before the Court of Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, on 13.06.2016 seeking divorce, which is still pending for adjudication. Learned counsel would submit that prior to filing of FCOP, Respondent No.2 filed DVC No.14 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam seeking monthly maintenance and 3 that the Learned Magistrate by order dated 11.10.2019 granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month apart from giving protection from domestic violence to respondent No.2 in future. Learned counsel would submit that after receipt of summons in FCOP, respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint which is the subject matter of Crime No.124 of 2016 of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet vide CC No.136 of 2017 on the file of the Court of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Seeking quashment of the Proceedings in CC No.136 of 2017, this Criminal petition is filed by the Petitioners. 4. Learned counsel would submit that Petitioner No.2/A.2 who is the father of Petitioner No.1/A.1 died during pendency of this Criminal Petition. Learned counsel would submit that without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioners, this Criminal Petition may be disposed of by dispensing with the presence of the Petitioners before the Trial Court. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the material on record, it is not a fit case for quashment of the Proceedings against the Petitioners 1 and 3/ A.1 and A.3 since there is a verifiable material against them, which needs elaborate enquiry. Considering the request of the learned counsel for the 4 Petitioners, without causing any prejudice of the rights and contentions of the Petitioners, the presence of Petitioners 1 and 3/A.1 and A.3 before the Trial Court is dispensed with unless their presence is specifically directed in connection with CC No.136 of 2017 on the file of the Court of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Since the crime is of the year 2016 and Calendar Case is of the year 2017, Learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of CC No.136 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible without granting any adjournments on mere asking. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Petition No. 62 of 2020 14.07.2025 Mjl /*