1 HN, J Crl.P.No.9365_2022 APHC010636872022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9365/2022 Between: Pathina Chandra Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. Munduru Eswar Brahmanand Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. B V APARNA LAKSHMI 2 HN, J Crl.P.No.9365_2022 The Court made the following Order: 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the brother-in-law of Accused No.1 and petitioner No.2 is the brother of Accused No.1. The respondent No.2 had married the Accused No.1, and on account of marital disputes, she filed a complaint before the police. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet and registered the case as C.C.No.472 of 2022, on the file of Junior I Class Magistrate, Amudulavalasa, Srikakulam District. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, initially the Court did not take cognizance against the petitioners, as it relied upon the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer, which specifically states that the petitioners, whenever they were available in the village, ensured Accused Nos.1 to 4 to remain quiet. After the departure of the petitioners, Accused Nos.1 to 4 would harass LW1. It is also noted in the charge sheet that LWs 5 to 7 did not reveal anything adverse against the petitioners. As such, the petitioners were found not responsible for the commission of the alleged offence punishable Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent filed a protest petition, urging the Court to proceed against the petitioners as well. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Magistrate passed an order taking cognizance on 06.10.2022 and made the following order: 3 HN, J Crl.P.No.9365_2022 “Complainant present, heard the Complainant, perused the statement of the complainant, and other material available on record, and prima facie case is made out against Accused Nos.1 to 4. Hence, this case is taken on file under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Accused Nos.1 to 6. Issue summons to Accused Nos.1 to 6. Call on 05.12.2022”. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the learned Magistrate passed the cognizance taken order, it specifically stated that a prima facie case against Accused Nos.1 to 4. However, there is no reference to a prima facie case against the petitioners. Nonetheless, summons were issued to the petitioners as well. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the cognizance taken order is devoid of details and is not a speaking order. The Magistrate ought to have passed an order based on the satisfaction of the Magistrate when compared to the material available on record to take cognizance against the petitioners. It is prayed that CC No.472 of 2022, on the file of the Junior I Class Magistrate, Amudulavalasa, Srikakulam District, to be quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned, as none of the witnesses provide any adverse statements regarding the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime. 4 HN, J Crl.P.No.9365_2022 6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the statement of LW1 must be considered, and that reference to the name of the 2nd petitioner is made in the statement of LW1. Insofar as the statements of LWs 1 to 3 make a reference to the names of the petitioners, the statements of LWs 4, 5 and 7 do not make any reference to the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime. It is submitted that the issue must be dealt with by the Court conducting the trial, as these are all questions of fact that need to be ascertained by the trial Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent prays for dismissing the quash petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The statement of LW5 indicates that the petitioners were informed about the harassment of the 2nd respondent by Accused Nos.1 to 4, and they had counseled Accused Nos.1 to 4. It is also stated that whenever the petitioners were in the village, there was no harassment from Accused No.1 to 4 towards the 2nd respondent. However, once the petitioners left the village, the harassment of LW1 by Accused Nos.1 to 4 resumed. 8. The petitioners are admittedly extended family members of the 1st accused and are working as police constables. The complaint of the petitioner is primarily against the 1st accused and there are no specific allegations of the petitioners’ involvement in the commission of the alleged crime. On the contrary, 5 HN, J Crl.P.No.9365_2022 the charge sheet reveals that the petitioners were in fact protecting the 2nd respondent from the alleged harassment by the Accused Nos.1 to 4. 9. Considering all this, the learned Magistrate observed in the cognizance taken order that prima facie was made out against Accused Nos.1 to 4. However, the learned Magistrate issued summons to Accused Nos.1 to 6, including the petitioners. The order taking cognizance is also devoid of any details regarding the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate about the petitioners’ role in the commission of the alleged offence, which is evidently missing in the order dated 06.10.2022. 10. Considering the material before this Court and the cognizance taken order passed by the learned Magistrate, the role of the petitioners in the commission of the offence has not been established by the investigating officer while filing the charge sheet. This is also recorded in the charge sheet. Considering the same, C.C.No.472 of 2022, on the file of Junior I Class Magistrate, Amudulavalasa, Srikakulam District, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 26.03.2025 NKA 6 HN, J Crl.P.No.9365_2022 471 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Criminal Petition No.9365 of 2022 Date: 26.03.2025 NKA