IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9600 OF 2022 Between: Smt.Tummala Sumana, W/o. Venkata Ramana Reddy Hindu, aged about 76 years, Occ. Household, R/o Flat No. 240, SthCorss Road, 80' Road, RMV 2nd Stage, Bangalore, Karnataka- 560094 ...Petitioner/Accused No.3 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Kurnool, Kurnool District rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P. at Amaravathi. ...Respondent No.1 2. Smt. Anusha Reddy, W/o Srinvasa Reddy, D/o Vishnuvardhan Reddy, H.No.40-8914-9-1, Srinivasa Nagar, Kurnool. ...RespondentNo.2/DefactoComplainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.37 of 2022 on the file of PrI.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Ongole, Prakasam District for the offences U/s 498(A) 307 r/w 34 of IPC sec 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. (name is amended as per Court order dated 23.12.2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2022vin Crl.P.No.9600 of 2022) I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased Stay all further Proceedings including her appearance in P.R.C.No. 37 of 2022 on the file Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum Juducial Magistrate First Class Ongole, Prakasam Dsitrict. I.A. NO: 3 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to Amend Prayer from " P.R.C. No.34 of 2021 on the on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, Kurnool District" to "P.R.C. No.37/2022 on the file of PrI.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Ongole, Prakasam District”. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V Himabindu, Advocate for the Petitioner, the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri G Rama Gopal on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010654382022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] H THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9600/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Smt.tummala Sumana AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.V HIMABINDU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1 .PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3 seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in PRC.No.37 of 2022 on the file of PrI.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class , Ongole, Prakasam District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. 2 Dr.VJPJ, CRLP.No.9600 of 2022 2. Heard Smt. T.Sumana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2through V.C 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 is grandmother of A1/husband of the defacto complainant/respondent No.2 in the present petition. The marriage of A1 and the respondent No.2 took place on 22.02.2019. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner herein was 75 years old at the time of the lodging of case. The alleged incident said to have been taken place on 18.09.2019, whereas the present case is lodged on 04.09.2020. Learned counsel would further submit that A1 filed Divorce petition against the respondent No.2 in the month of May, 2020. After receiving of summons in the said petition, after coming to know about the divorce petition moved by the husband, a false case has been lodged in the month of September, 2020. Learned counsel would further submit that except omnibus allegations that A3 joined with her son and grandson in harassing the respondent No.2, nothing is alleged against her in specific. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner used to stay in Bangalore whereas A1 and the respondent No.2 used to reside at Nellore. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is sheer abuse of process of law. m 1 3 Dr.VJPJ, CRLP.No.9600 of 2022 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that specific allegations are made against the petitioner herein that she used to abuse the respondent No.2 by using vulgar language. A case came to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 159 of 2020 at Yashwantpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would further submit that A3 has joined her son and grandson in pouring kerosene over the body of the respondent No.2 and tried to set fire. Learned counsel finally submits that this is not a fit case for quashment and prays for dismissal of the petition. r 4. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar\ held as follows: 5. “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband In matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 4 f Dr.VJPj, CRLP.No.9600 of 2022 ^ ***** 22. Therefore, upon circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instance that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. ” consideration of the relevant i severe scars (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another^ highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows: 6. ‘25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, It Is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain ^ 2024 INSC 369 5 Dr.VJPJ, CRLP.No.9600 of 2022 individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.” (emphasis supplied) In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another^ the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:; 7. “The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions. ” (emphasis supplied) To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present In the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. In the backdrop of the legal position referred supra, the present petitioner is the paternal grandmother of the husband. She was aged about 75 years at the time of 8. V '2024 INSC 896 CRLP.No.9600 of 2022 ., registering the crime. The case came to be registered after one year of the alleged incident. That apart, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner except omnibus allegations, nothing is attributed against her in specific. It is represented that A1 obtained divorce. The respondent No.2 did not choose to appear and contest before the court where divorce petition was pending. The court passed ex-parte divorce in favour of the husband, marriage and is residing in nd Thereafter, the respondent No.2 contacted 2 U.S.The charge sheet would show that the petitioner abused the respondent No.2 in vulgar language. Except that, charge sheet is bereft of any details against the petitioner to attract the offence under Sections 498-A or 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. In the absence of any such material. continuing criminal proceedings against her is sheer abuse of process of law. In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings against petitioner/A3 in PRC.No.37 of 2022 on the file of PrI.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Ongole, Prakasam District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act is hereby quashed. 9. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / r //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Ongole. »/ 2. OneCCto Sri. V Himabindu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G Rama Gopal, Advocate.[OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 5. Three CD Copies PNM vna m HIGH COURT I DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER r. X 2 8 JAN 2025 CRLP.No.9600 of 2022 Co ^ . Curreni becvion ^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION