m APHC010454792023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUN TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ■J. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6820 OF 2023 Between: 1. Dokku Varalashmi, w/o Narayya, Aged about 66 years, P & T Colony, Rajmundry Town. 2. Dokku Lakshman Siva kumar, S/o Narayya, Aged about 33 years, P&T Colony, Rajmundry Town. 3. Goriparthi Kavitha, w/o Suresh, Aged about 38 Karnataka. 4. Goriparthi Suresh, S/o Krishna, Aged about 43 years. Bangalore, Karnataka. 5. Nandikolla Lakshmi, w/o Atchi Babu, Aged about 35 years, Turpu-kapu Rajamundry Town. years. Bangalore,. ...Petitioners/Accused 2 to 6 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor Through the SHO, Kaikalur Town P.S., High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 2. Manne Swapna, w/o Dokku Rama Siva Kumar, Aged about 25 Brundavanam Apartments, Kaikalur Village and Mandal. years. ...Respondents 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, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to and in connection with C.C No. 1055 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru registered under 498A, Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act consequently quash the same against the petitioners/Accu sed No. 2 to 6. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1055 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru including appearance of the petitioners herein. Counsel for the Petitioners: MIS. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.V. ADITYA CHOWDARY The Court made the following order: APHC010454792023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY.THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6820/2023 Between: Dokku Varalashmi and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.AYESHAAZMAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6820/2023 ORDER; Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.1055 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru. The 1®* petitioner is the mother of accused, the 2"^^ petitioner is the brother of 1®' accused, the 3^^ petitioner is the sister of accused, the 4*^ petitioner is the husband of the 3^*^ petitioner and the 5^*^ petitioner is the house maid working in the house of 1®* accused. The petitioners are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is stated in the complaint that the marriage of the 1 accused and the 2^^^ St respondent was performed on 30.08.2018 and that at the time of marriage. twenty lakhs cash and 40 tula gold, apart from, other house hold articles were given as dowry. The 1®* accused and the 2'"'^ respondent stayed for sometime at Rajahmundry and thereafter shifted to Bangalore as the 1®* accused was working at Bangalore. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused had assaulted the 2"^^ respondent at Rajahmundry and thereafter on filing a complaint before the police and on intervention of elders, the issue was pacified and the 2"^ respondent joined the company of 1 Bangalore. It is alleged that though the 2'^'^ respondent joined the company of 1®* accused at Bangalore, the accused was constantly harassing her. It is St accused at stated that, on 19.09.2022, the accused and his friends and other family members have approached the 2^^ respondent and created a Galata at her house and when they raised a hue and cry, the watchmen and others pacify the situation. Thereafter the police completed investigation and filed a charge sheet. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the police in their investigation have recorded the statements of as many as five witnesses apart from the de-facto complainant; the statement of her father and father’s brother and two neighbors was recorded. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners or their involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. That apart, it is submitted that none of the witnesses speak about the involvement of the 6'^ accused. It is also submitted that it is unbelievable that a house maid could assault the 2"'^ respondent in presence of the other accused. came to 3. Learned counsel for the 2^^ respondent submits that there specific allegations in the complaint as well as the independent witnesses who have stated about the assault and all these issues are triable before the trial Court. are 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the 2^^^^ respondent. 4 The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 6. The 1®* petitioner is the mother of the accused No.1, the 2'^'^ petitioner is the brother of the accused No.1, petitioner No.3 is the sister of accused No.1 and the 4'^ petitioner is the husband of the 3'^^ petitioner. The petitioner is the housemaid of the petitioners. This is one of the rare cases where the housemaid working in the house of the accused is alleged to have committed offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. On perusal of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses, it is evident that the accused No.1 and the 2""^ respondent were married on 30.08.2018. It is alleged that twenty lakhs cash lousehold articles worth t-vvo lakhs were given to the accused, it is alleged that the accused No.1 and the 2^*^ respondent were stayed at Rajahmundry for only one month and that thereafter they shifted to Bangalore. It is alleged that the accused No.1 harassed the 2'^^ respondent for additional dowry at Bangalore. It is also alleged that the accused No.1 was addicted to bad vices and was harassing the 2"^^ respondent to bring additional dowry. It is also alleged that the other accused were harassing the 2"^ respondent over phone. It is also alleged in the complaint that an additional amount of rupees five lakhs were given in presence of elders. 5. 6. and 40 tuias of gold ornaments anlU 7. The police have filed a charge sheet by recording witnesses. The charge sheet or the complaint or the witness statements do not specify the role of petitioners 2 to 5. Admittedly, petitioners 3 residing in Bangalore and even if the allegation of the complainant taken as true that an additional amount of statements of five and 4 are is to be rupees five lakhs has given dowry at the house of accused in Rajahmundry, the petitioners 3 and 4 as were evidently not available and none of the witnesses speak about their at that point of time. presence 8. The charge sheet or the statements of witnesses do not allege any overt act against the 5*^ petitioner. The 5*^ housemaid working in the house of petitioners 1 and 2. It specifically petitioner is the is difficult comprehend the role of the housemaid committing alleged offences under Section 498-A IPC and by no stretch of imagination a housemaid charged of offences under Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. can be 9. The entire allegations revolve around accused No.1 and allegations attribute the role of petitioner No.1, which any would have to be dealt by the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits after recording the evidence of the listed witnesses. 10. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered that the criminal petition is deserves to be allowed in-part, accordingly, CC.No. 1055 of part of the 6 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru is hereby quashed against petitioners 2 to 5/Accused Nos.3 to 6. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial first Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru Krishna District. 2. One CC to M/s. Ayesha Azma S, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri K V Aditya Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies AKR sree HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 6820 OF 2023 ^ 0 9 SEP 2025 )g) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION