APHC010537332023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8631/2023 Between: 1. MALLIPEDDI ESTER RANI, W/O MALLIPEDDI SIVA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 60YRS, CASTE KAMMA, R/O D. NO. 6-19/4, HONEY HOMES, FLAT NO. 104, NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, PORANKI ROAD, NIDAMANURU. 2. MALLIPEDDI SIVA PRASAD, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52YRS, CASTE KAMMA, R/O D. NO. 6-19/4, HONEY HOMES, FLAT NO. 104, NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, PORANKI ROAD, NIDAMANURU. 3. JITHENDRA KUMAR,, S/O MALLIPEDDI SIVA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 31YRS, CASTE KAMMA, R/O 2022 PIMMIT RUN LN, APT 201, FALLS CHURCH, VA 22043 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (REPRESENTED BY ITS G.P.A HOLDER MR. M.SIVA PRASAD FATHER OF THE PETITIONER NO 3) ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AZITH SINGH NAGAR POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA CITY. 3. NANNURI KOMALI, W/O. BHARAT KUMAR. AGED ABOUT 25YRS., CASTE KAMMA, R/O D. NO. 43-143-20, AZIRTH SINGH NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to quash the charge sheet and the entire proceedings against Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 in C.C. No. 2015/2023 on the file of Learned IV AddI. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court at Vijayawada City, in the interest of Justice, IA 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 may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of C.C No 2015 of 2023,on the file of Hon'ble IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada before this Honble Court IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 in C.C.NO 2015/2023 on the file of Learned IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court, at Vijayawada City, in the interest of Justice, pending the Criminal Petition before this Hon'ble Court in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. REGULAGADDA VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8631 OF 2023 ORDER : 1. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4 in CC.No.2015 of 2023 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada for alleged offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent has filed a complaint alleging that the marriage of the 3rd respondent and the elder son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was performed on 14.02.2019 and that the parents of the 3rd respondent gave an amount of rupees thirty lakhs as dowry apart from other expenses towards the engagement and for setting up of family. It is also alleged in complaint that at the time of marriage the parents of the 3rd respondent yielded to the demand of her husband and agreed to register the plot admeasuring 600 Sq.yards valuing about rupees ninety lakhs on his name. 3. It is further alleged in the complaint that the 3rd petitioner was residing in USA and that he could not attend the reception and directed the 3rd respondent family to bear the expenses for online streaming of the event. It is also alleged that the 3rd petitioner could not attend the marriage also on account of his stay in USA, he insisted for online streaming of the marriage event. It is stated that due to preoccupation with other works the marriage event could not be live streamed, however, the expenses for online streaming of engagement were borne by the parents of the 3rd respondent. 4. It is the specific allegation in the complaint that the 3rd petitioner used to call up on whatsapp and threaten the 3rd respondent that accused No.1 would give divorce to her if the plot is not registered in favour of the accused No.1. It is also alleged in the complaint that the 3rd respondent’s parents gave rupees thirty lakhs in cash to accused No.1 on 24.11.2020 by mortgaging the site. It is also alleged in the complaint that the accused No.1 uploaded his status on facebook as single and that on 15.02.2021 the accused No.1 left the 3rd respondent at her parents’ house and refused to allow the petitioner back into the marital home by raising demands for dowry. The police filed a charge sheet by recording statements of as many as eight witnesses apart from the police officials. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and that none of the witnesses specify the role of the petitioners in commission of any of the alleged offences. The police have stated in the charge sheet that accused No.4 is in USA and after tracing accused No.4, additional charge sheet shall be laid against accused No.4 under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Preeti Gupta & another Vs. State of Jharkhan & Another1, the Hon’ble Supreme 1 2010(6) Supreme 312 Court dealt with the issue of roping in the family members of the husband by making upsurd and inherently improbable allegations and gave directions to the registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary for placing it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law and Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society. 6. Though notice is served on 3rd respondent there is no representation, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed further with the matter as the 3rd respondent has not evinced any interest for pursuing this case. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material on record. 8. The complaint and charge sheet do not specify the role of the 3rd petitioner in commission of any acts which would attract the punishment for alleged offences under section 498-A IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. It is an undisputed fact that the 3rd petitioner did not attend the engagement of accused No.1 and the 3rd respondent. It is also not in dispute that the 3rd petitioner also did not attend the marriage of accused No.1 and 3rd respondent. The 3rd petitioner was living in USA by the time the engagement took place, the marriage took place and even as on the date of registration of crime against him. The 3rd respondent has not interacted with the 3rd petitioner face to face at any point of time. Allegations of harassment over a whatsapp call from USA cannot sustain the scrutiny of law. It is not stated as to when, what time and whom the 3rd petitioner called over whatsapp and how such alleged calls constitute offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. 9. The police have also blindly stated in the charge sheet that petitioner No.3/accused No.4 is in America and after tracing accused No.4 additional charge sheet will be filed against the petitioner No.3 under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., There is no whisper as to what evidence was available for laying a charge sheet against the 3rd respondent. 10. In so far as allegations against the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, they would have to be tested before the trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial, however, continuance of the case against the 3rd petitioner is a gross abuse of the due process of law. Pendency of a criminal case is traumatic and often leads to immense suffering. 11. Cause of action for filing a complaint against 3rd petitioner is missing in the complaint and the investigating officer has erred in filing a charge sheet by observing that additional charge sheet will be laid against the 3rd petitioner after tracing him. The said observation is nothing but holding out an imminent threat of arrest and exposure to undesired harassment of facing trial in a false complaint. 12. This is one more classic case where the kin of the husband are arraigned as accused to wreak vengeance against the family of the estranged husband of the complainant. On the facts of the case and considering the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal petition deserves to be allowed in part, CC.No.2015 of 2023 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada is hereby quashed in so far as petitioner No.3/Accused No.4. 13. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed in part. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 01.08.2025 KGM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8631 OF 2023 Date: 01.08.2025 KGM