1 APHC010586952024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9489/2024 Between: 1. I SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. SANKARA BBABU, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O. 3-173, MUDRAGADAVARI STREET, SANTHANUTHALAPADU(V85M), PRAKASAM DIST., R/AT 11-2- 202/A/BL, MYALARAGADDA, SITHAPHAL MANDAI, HYDERABAD CITY, TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI THROUGH SHO, DISHA WOMAN POLICE STATION, SPSR NELLORE DIST., 2. SMT K JHANSI, W/O. I SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 35 YEARS. OCC PVT SERVICE R/O. OLD BITRAGUNTA(V), BOGOLU (M), SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...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 call for the record pertaining to C.C.No. 1393/20 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Nellore District and consequently Quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 1393/20 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Nellore District against the Petitioner/A1 concerned and to pass such 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 in filing Certified Copy of Charge Sheet in C.C.No. 1393/2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Nellore Nellore District pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and to pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1393/20 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Nellore District against the Petitioners/A1 including his appearance forthwith pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9489/2024 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.1393 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Nellore District for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act. 2. Heard Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein/Accused No.1 is the husband of the defacto complainant. The accused No.1 never harassed the defacto complainant for the dowry. The defacto complainant lodged a false case against the petitioner since the petitioner/A1 filed O.P.No.670 of 2019 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad due to matrimonial misunderstandings and disputes with the respondent No.2/defacto complainant. The present case has been lodged by the respondent No.2 after receiving the notice in O.P.No.670 of 2019. He would further submit that Hon’ble Apex Court also held that initiating criminal case against husband and in laws, after receipt of a notice in Divorce petition 4 amounts to act as retaliatory measure against them to settle their personal scores. 4. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in Dhara Lakshmi Narayana & others vs. State of Telangana and Another1., at para No. 20, which is extracted hereunder: “20. Losing hope in the marriage, appellant No.1 issued a legal notice to respondent No.1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13.12.2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by appellant No.1, respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR 82 of 2022 on 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.” 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that there are specific overt-acts against the petitioner to the effect that he demanded additional dowry from the defacto complainant and harassed her physically and mentally. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays to dismiss the present petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and a keen perusal of the material placed on record, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case is purely a retaliatory measure to the divorce petition filed by the petitioner and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not come to his rescue in that aspect for the following reasons. Going into the facts of the case in Dhara Lakshmi 1 2024 INSC 953 5 Narayana & others vs. State of Telangana and Another2., it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that the wife joined the first appellant therein who is the husband, at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu, where he was working in Southern Railways . They were married in 2015 and begot two children in the years 2016 and 2017 respectively. The husband lodged missing complaint on 05.10.2021 and thereafter, addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 requesting for closure of the said complaint stating that she left matrimonial home on her own accord owing to the quarrel with the husband because one Govindan with whom she was in contact over telephone for a period of 10 days. She also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. Under those circumstances, it was observed that the allegations made against the husband and family members are too far-fetched and are not believable. 7. However, coming to the case on hand, there are specific allegations made against the petitioner to the effect that he harassed his wife physically and mentally for additional dowry. It was also alleged against the petitioner that when the wife is pregnant, the petitioner has sent her for Srimantham celebration and told that if she get cash by selling one acre land, then only he will allow her to rejoin the matrimonial house. As rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court is also of the opinion that it is not a fit case for quashment. 2 2024 INSC 953 6 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition may be disposed of without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner. 9. Considering the submissions made, the Criminal Petition is disposed of without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the Trial Court. Learned Trial Judge may appreciate the same and take appropriate decision according to law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 23.07.2025 UPS 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9489/2024 Dated.23.07.2025 UPS 180 0