IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7318 OF 2022 Between: 1. Simha Anjani Kumar, S/o Sanyasi Rao, Aged 40 years, D.No.9-81, Nerellavalasa Colony, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-531163. 2. Simha VenkateswaraRao, S/o Sanyasi Rao, Aged 47 years, D.No. 9- 99, Nerellavalasa Colony, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-531163. 3. Simha Girish Kumar, S/o Sanyasi Rao, Aged 41 years, Nerellavalasa Colony, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-531163. 4. Simha Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Simha VenkateswaraRao, Aged 41 years, D.No. 9-99, Nerellavalasa Colony, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam,Andhra Pradesh-531163. 5. R.S. Suneetha, W/o Simha Girish Kumar, Aged 31 years, D.No. 9-99, Nerellavalasa Colony, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-531163. 6. Simha Jitendra, , S/o Late SSRCV Prasad Rao, Aged 28 years, D.No. 9-81, Nerellavalasa Colony, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-531163. ...Petitioner / Accused No.1 to 6 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi, 2. Simha Baby Neelima, W/o S.Anjani Kumar, Aged 40 years, House Wife R/o D.No. 1-67, Vendra Village, Palakonda Mandal, West Godavari District. ... 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 all further proceedings in D,V,C,No.4 of 2022on the file of The 2nd Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, Bhimavaram, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, in the interest of Justice, pending disposal of the above DVC petition. 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 stay all further proceedings in DVC No. 4 of 2022 on the file of the 2nd Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, including the attendance of the petitioners before the court in the interest of justice. Court name is amended as 2"'^ Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, instead of I Addl. Judicial 1®* class Magistrate-cum - Addl Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, as per the Court order dated 15/10/2024 in lA No. 1/2023 in CrI.P No. 7318/2022 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Samboju Bala Gopal, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri. N.A Rama Chandra Murthy Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: 1 APHC010486882022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7318/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) Simha Anjani Kumar, and Others AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.SAMBOJU BALA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S); 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY The Court made the following: 2 DR.VJPJ, CRLP.No.7318/2022 ■ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7318/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 6, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in D.V.C.No.04 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram. 2. Heard Sri S.Bala Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners herein i.e., the petitioner No.1 is the husband. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the brothers of the husband. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are sisters of the husband. Petitioner No.6 is the son of the 1®* brother i.e., the 2'^'^ petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that after the marriage, the respondent No.2 stayed with Accused No.1 only for few months. Thereafter, disputes arose and the matter is settled amicably. They have agreed for the compromise, the petitioner No.1 agreed to pay the amount on obtaining the divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel would further submit continuing criminal 3 DR.VJPJ, CRLP.No.7318/2022 » proceedings against the petitioners in absence of any specific allegations except vague and omnibus allegations is abuse of process of law. I 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 would submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioner No.1 and the Court may pass appropriate orders regarding the remaining petitioners. Determination by the Court: 5. 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 orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to so as to make any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction i or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of IS not functioning as a revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the court of appeal or a court of case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of glaring injustice, which process of law or are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. In the context of quashment of 6. criminal proceedings arising out of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court i State of Bihar\ held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate this court has at numerous instances the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of in that expressed concern over a trial on the 2022 LiveLaw(SC)141 4 DR.VJPJ, CRLP.No.7318/2022 • complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prime facie case is made out against them. ***** 22.Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instance that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also Inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. ” (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 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 of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as 7. 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 ^ 2024 INSC 369 5 DR.VJPJ, - CRLP.No.7318/2022 ^ 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 soie object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. ” (emphasis supplied) In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another^, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:: 8. “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. ” (emphasis supplied) In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and Another'^, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:: “31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 see 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the 9. ^2024 INSC 896 “2024 INSC 953 6 DR.VJPJ, CRLP.No.7318/2022 • husband’s close relatives 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 complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos. 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lai. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants. ” (emphasis supplied) \ To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that 10. 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. In the backdrop of legal position referred supra, the case of the petitioners has to be scrutinized with great care and caution of factual aspects of the matter. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners and 11. 7 DR.VJPJ, ^ CRLP.No.7318/2022 fairly conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2, continuing D.V.C proceedings against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 who are the family members of the husband is mere abuse of process of law, in absence of the specific allegations attributed against them. In that view, the Criminal petition is partly allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 in D.V.C.No.4 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram,is hereby quashed. On the other hand, the Criminal Petition is dismissed for the Petitioner No.1. 12. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The District Family Judge at Visakhapatnam. 2. The 2nd Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram. 3. One CC to Sri. Samboju Bala Gopal Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. N.A. Rama Chandra Murhty Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies PR CSC HIGH COURT DATED:12/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7318 of 2022 2 1 MAR 2025 Co, a^ Current Section ALLOWING THE CRLP IN PART