APHC010442352024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 050 0 FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7133 OF 2024 Between: 1. Bethireddy Jayalakshmi, W/o Prasad, Aged about 45 years, residents of Ft/o. 18-4-8/3 Balija Palem, Kandukur Mandal Prakasam District Andhra Pradesh 523105 2. Bethireddy Prasad, S/o Ayyanna, Aged about 52 years, residents of Ft/o. 18-4-8/3 Balija Palem, Kandukur Mandal Andhra Pradesh 523105 3. Bethireddy Raviteja, S/o Bethireddy Venkata Prasad, Aged about 23 years, residents of Ft/o. 18-4-8/3 Balija Palem, Kandukur Mandal Prakasam District Andhra Pradesh 523105 4. Bethireddy Ramchand @ Ramchand, S/o Bethireddy Venkata Prasad, Aged about 21 years, residents of Ft/o. 18-4-8/3 Balija Palem, Kandukur Mandal Prakasam District Andhra Pradesh 523105 Prakasam District ...Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4,6 to 8 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, The High court of A.P. Amaravathi, Guntur District (through Kandukur Police Station) Ri;-' • 2. Daram Ragini, W/o Mekala Narasimha Rao Balija Palem, Kandukur Mandal 523105 Aged about 30 years, Prakasam District Andhra Pradesh r ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused to 8 in FIR No. 93 of 2022 Sections 498-A, r/w 34 of IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Acf, 67 of IT Act lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Nos.4, 6 on the file of Kandukur Town Police Station, under 2000/2008. 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 High Court may be pleased to stay of all further the proceedings including the appearance of Petitioner/Accused Nos.4, 6 to 8, in FIR No; 93 of 2022 file of Kandukur ToWn Police Station, under Sections 498-A , on the , r/w 34 of IPC, pending disposal of the above Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act, 67 of IT Act 2000/2008 criminal petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Raja Damoji Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri MD Saleem The Court made the following order: APHC010442352024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] i' FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7133/2024 Between: 1.BRTHIREDDY JAYALAKSHMI, W/0 PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF FT/0. 18-4-8/3 BALIJA PALEM, KANDUKUR MANDAL PRAKASAM DISIRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 523105 2.BETHIREDDY PRASAD, S/0 AYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF FT/0. 18-4-8/3 BALIJA PALEM, KANDUKUR MANDAL PRAKASAM DISIRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 523105 3.BETHIREDDY RAVITEJA, S/0 BETHIREDDY VENKATA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF FT/O. 18-4-8/3 BALIJA PALEM, KANDUKUR MANDAL PRAKASAM DISIRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 523105 4. BETHIREDDY RAMCHAND @ RAMCHAND, S/0 BETHIREDDY VENKATA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF FT/O. 18-4-8/3 BALIJA PALEM, KANDUKUR MANDAL PRAKASAM DISIRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 523105 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC THE HIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATHI, PROSECUTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT (THROUGH KANDUKURPOLICE STATION) 2.DARAM RAGINI, W/0 MEKALA NARASIMHA RAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BALIJA PALEM, KANDUKUR MANDAL PRAKASAM DISIRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 523105 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.RAJA DAMOJI RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.MD SALEEM 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ' \ ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.4, 6 to 8, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in F.I.R.No.93 of 2022 on the file of Kandukur Town Police Station, Prakasam District registered for the offences under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Sri Raja Damoji Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Petitioner No. 1/Accused No.4 is the maternal aunt of Accused No.1, Petitioner No.2/Accused No.6 is the husband of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 / Accused Nos.7 and 8 are the children of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel would further submit that, except bald and omnibus allegations, there is not even single allegation against the Petitioners, in specific, to connect them with the alleged crime, further submit that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present crime only to settle the scores with Accused No.1. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioners never resided under one roof along with the family of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Per contra, Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that there are specific allegations made against the Petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided during 2. Learned counsel would Therefore, continuation of criminal 3. 3 investigation and the proceedings against the Petitioners at this stage cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 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 of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. While dealing with the quashment of the matrimonial offences, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others Vs. State of Telangana and another\ held as follows; “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It Is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution In such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present appellant Nos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution r 4. reasons 5. case, 2024 INSC 953 4 and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. *** 28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift Intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise In matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse Is taken to Invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family In the absence of a clearprima facie case against them." In Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand & another^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under; 6. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the Implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to Insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object ofjustice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent To find out the truth Is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of Implicating husband and all his Immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living In different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It Is also a matter of common knowledge that In cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. ” - (2010) 7 see 667 5 To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present in the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. Except making a casual reference of the names of the Petitioners in the complaint, nothing is attributed against them in specific. In the absence of any specific overt acts against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4, 6 to 8, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against them is a sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case for quashment by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4, 6 to 8 in F.I.R.No.93 of 2022 on the file of Kandukur Town Police Station, Prakasam District for the offences under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, are hereby quashed. 7. 8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISJRAR (^ttc^officer //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. The Station House Officer District 3 Onp rr 1° f Advocate [OPUC] . One CC to Sri. MD Saleem, Advocate [OPUCl ' Araravathf[OUTr'“'' 6. Two CD Copies Kandukur Town Police Station, Prakasam Stu NM HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7133 OF 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION