IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY .THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7028, 6465, 6825 OF 2022 Between: Bathini Ananda Kumar@ battini Ananda Kumar, S/o. Anjaneyulu, Hindu aged about 34 years, Occ Private Employee, R/o. Subbarao Peta Nandikothur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...Respondent No.1 2. Arabolu Swathi @ Anitha, D/o. Lakshmi Ramana, W/o. B. Ananda Kumar, aged about 33 years. Home manager, 11/45, Maruthi Nagar Paatha Peta, Dhone Town and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Defacto Complainant/RespondentNo.2 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 quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 37/2022 on the file of Court of the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First- Class, Dhone. 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, the Fligh Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC.No. 37/2022 on the file of court of Flon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6465 OF 2022 Between: 1. Bathini Anjaneyulu @ Battini Anjaneyulu (A2), S/o. late B. Balaiah, Flindu, aged about 67 years, Occ- Street Vendor, R/o. 17-48/C, Subbarao Peta, Nandikotkur (T and M), Kurnool District. 2. Bathini Anusuyamma @ Battini Anusuyamma (A3), W/o. B. Anjaneyulu, Flindu, aged about 64 years, Occ- Street Vendor, R/o. 17-48/C, Subbarao Peta, Nandikotkur (T and M), Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Fligh Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi 2. Arabolu Swathi @ Anitha, D/o. Lakshmi Ramana, W/o. B. Ananda Kumar, aged about 31 years, Flome manager, 11/45, Maruthi Nagar, Paatha Peta, Dhone Town and Mandal, Kurnool District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 pleased to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 37/2022 on the file of Court of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First-Class, Dhone. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 37/2022 on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate of First-Class, Dhone, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6825 OF 2022 Between: Podili Saroja, (A4) W/o. Podili Babu Rao, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Occ- street vendor, It/o. 17-42, Subbarao Peta, Nandikotkur (T and M), Kurnool District. 1. 2. Thammeeru Sandhya, (A5) W/o. T. Venkatesulu, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Occ- Street Vendor, R/o. 17-48C/A, Subbarao Peta, Nandikotkur (T and M), Kurnool District. Akuthota Soujanya, (A6) W/o. Akuthota Eranna, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. 1-2510-33-36, Military Colony, Near Thayamma Temple, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. 3. 4. Bathini Abhimanyudu, (A7) S/o. Anjaneyulu, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Occ- Data Entry Operator, R/o. 17-48/C, Subbarao Peta, Nandikotkur (T and M), Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. 2. Arabolu Swathi @ Anitha, D/o. Lakshrni Ramana, W/o. B. Ananda Kumar, aged about 33 years. Home manager, 11/45, Maruthi Nagar, Paatha Peta, Dhone Town and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 pleased to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 37/2022 on the file of Court of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First-Class, Dhone. 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, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 37/2022 on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate of First-Class, Dhone, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. P Saraswathi, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor High Court of AP on behalf of the Respondents No.1 and of Sri. Y. Ramesh Advocate for the Respondents No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER APHC010467672022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 7028. 6465 AND 6825/2022 Criminal Petition No.7028 of 2022 Between: Bathini Ananda Kumar@ Battini Ananda Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 AND ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINT(S) The State of A.P., & another Criminal Petition No.6465 of 2022 Bathini Anjaneyulu @ Battini Anjaneyulu & another ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.2 & 3 AND ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINT(S) The State of A.P., & another Criminal Petition No.6825 of 2022 Podili Saroja & others ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.4 to 7 AND ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINT(S) The State of A.P., & another Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S): 1.PSARASWATHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.YADAVALLI RAMESH 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 COMMON ORDER; The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure \ 1973 have been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 and 4 to 7 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.37 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961^. 2. Heard Ms.P.Saraswathi, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Yadavalli Ramesh, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners have not committed alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent No.2 never stayed along with Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 and they visited occasionally in view of the employment of Accused No.1 and the same was accepted by Respondent No.2 in her reply notice, which was given to the noticed issued by Accused No.1. It is submitted that, after filing of H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2020 by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for restitution of conjugal rights, the present complaint has been filed by Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the present complaint was filed only to harass the Petitioners. There are no specific allegations against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. ^ for short 'Cr.P.C' ^ For short‘DP Act’ 3 Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners for the commission of the alleged offences. The veracity of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Point for Determination 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both 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. 1 to 7 in C.C.No.37 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone? Determination by the Court 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 7. 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 4 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. As seen from the complaint, it is alleged that, the marriage of 8. Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 was performed on 04.11.2016 and at the time of marriage, there was exchange of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and 8 tulas of gold. After two years of the marriage, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 started harassing her both physically and mentally stating that she has to cook for all of them. Even after the transfer of Accused No.1 to Selam, Tamil Nadu, he did not take Respondent No.2 along with him and kept her at her in-laws and In order to put up separate family asked her to serve them. Petitioner/Accused No.1 used to demand her to bring an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from her parents and used to subject her to both physical and mental cruelty. It is further alleged in the complaint that, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 used to demand additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. A such, she lodged a complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 7 which was registered as a case in Crime No.287 of 2020 on the file of Dhone Police Station, Kurnool District for the alleged offences. After completion of investigation. Police filed charge sheet before the trial Court for the alleged offences, which was numbered as C.C.No.37 of 2022. A bare perusal of the complaint as well as the charge sheet would 9. reveal that except a casual reference, there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7, who are the father, mother, sisters and brother of Accused No.1. Admittedly, Petitioners/Accused 5 ■t Nos.4 to 6 are the married sisters of Accused No.1 and they have been residing along with their respective families. Mere allegation of demand of additional dowry by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 along with Petitioner/Accused No.1 would not amount to the commission of the alleged offences. Except a casual reference of the names of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7, there are no allegations in specific to attract the offences alleged against them. 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 11. 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 3 AIR 2000 sc 2324 " 2024 INSC 369 6 of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows: “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 complaint 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, no prima facie case is made out against the However there are specific overt acts 13. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7. attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 to prima facie attract the 5 SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022, dated 26.11.2024 V, •-*» r m- 1 f offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. When there is a material to proceed further against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, it is not a fit case to entertain the quashment against him. However, as discussed above, since there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition Nos.6465 and 6825 of 2022 are allowed by quashing proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 in C.C.No.37 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Dhone for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Criminal Petition No.7028 of 2022 is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4r //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class Dhone, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to Smt. P Saraswathi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Y. Ramesh, Advocate, [OPUC] 4. TwoCCsto Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies PNM vna HIGH COURT DATED:24/01/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.7028, 6465, 6825 of 2022 £P g 15 FEU 2025 Current ueciion . ALLOWING THE CRLP’s 6465, 6825 OF 2022 AND DISMISSING THE CRLP 7028 OF 2022