Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33896 (AP)

G.BHANU MURTHY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

CRLP/7859/2023 · 2025-04-07

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010513602023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7859/2023 Between: G.bhanu Murthy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) HN, J Crl.P.No.7859_2021 2 The Court made the following order: 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as accused in C.C.No.673 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu, for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has filed a false complaint after grant of divorce to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent on 20.06.2022. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint on 16.11.2022 i.e., much after the divorce was granted by the competent family Court. 3. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent has made fake allegations without any specific details as to details of the alleged harassment to the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that certain allegations made against the petitioner would also correlate to incidents that has happened prior to the marriage of the petitioner with the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the 2nd respondent on 14.11.2023 and certain incidents are related to dates prior to the marriage. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has deserted the petitioner and has been living separately from him since the year 2017 and HN, J Crl.P.No.7859_2021 3 that the children born to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are presently with the petitioner. Even as per the statements recorded by the Police, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner as such seeks quashing of C.C.No.673 of 2023. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent filed statements that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that in the ex-parte divorce granted by the Court, the 2nd respondent has filed an application seeking to set aside the order of grant of ex-parte divorce. On 05.05.2023, the order of granting ex-parte divorce was set aside and HMOP was restored to file. It is submitted that this fact was known to the petitioner as on the date of filing the present quash petition. 5. It submitted that the petitioner had also filed TRCMP No.276 of 2023 on 05.10.2023 seeking transfer of HMOP No.261 of 2021 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu to Family Court at Vijayawada. It is submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the listed witnesses also speak about the allegations. All these need to be tried before the trial Court. It is also submitted that when the specific allegations are made, this Court should ideally relegate the matter to the trial Court for deciding the question of fact. HN, J Crl.P.No.7859_2021 4 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 7. The quash petition was filed on 07.10.2023 and as on that date evidently the petitioner had knowledge of the HMOP being restored to file on 05.10.2023. This Court on 05.10.2023 had ordered notice before admission in the TRCMP No.276 of 2023 filed by the petitioner. As such, the petitioner cannot state that he was not aware of the restoration of the HMOP and cannot rely on the ex-parte decree of divorce granted on 20.06.2022. 8. Considering the submissions and after perusing the record, the allegations relating to the commission of alleged offence and the statements of the listed witness statements would have to be determined by the trial Court. Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 07.04.2025 JLV HN, J Crl.P.No.7859_2021 5 172 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.7859 of 2023 Date: 07.04.2025 JLV