APHC010630002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Between: Sane Guru Sai Prathap and Others The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. Y JAYA RAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) 6 seeking quashment of the proceedings of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9397 OF 2022 Sane Guru Sai Prathap and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”), has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No. Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal has been filed by the Petitioners/ A-1 to them in C.C.No. 82 Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. 2. Heard Mr. Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire report and charge sheet do not in anywhere contain the alleged dates of harassment much less the months on which the alleged harassment took place and nowhere in the report or 161 statements, which acts of the petitioners amounted to mental and physical harassment other than casually stating so without mentioning any instances. The respondents 2 to 6 are residents of different places and they are living their respective families. They were unnecessarily implicated in this case, though they never harassed the 2nd respondent and they never stayed at any point of time with the 2nd respondent or visited her house. Therefore, there were no specific allegations against them warranting trial. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to harassment. Further, the statements of witnesses, which were recorded by the police, have supported the case of the prosecution case. Therefore, question of quashing the proceedings against the petitioners does not arise at all. 5. Considering the submissions made, on perusal of the material on record and on bare look of the material would show that there are no specific overt acts against the A-2 to A6, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since there are allegations against the A-1, the Criminal Proceedings cannot be quashed at this juncture. Therefore, the case against the A-2 to A-6 are liable to be quashed, except A-1. However, A-1 is at liberty to agitate the same before the Trial Court for redressal of his grievance. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed, insofar as A-2 to A-6 are concerned and dismissed as far as A-1 is concerned. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.02.2025 KK