APHC010653412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9580/2022 Between: SeerapuGollababu and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in PRC.No.23 of 2022 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram for the offences under Sections452, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2 2. Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per the charge sheet filed by the Police, the offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 4 of the D.P.Act. Learned counsel would further submit that when it is alleged against the A1 that he refused to contact marriage with the daughter of the defacto complainant and in that process, he has criminally trespassed the house of the defacto complainant and set fire and caused injuries to LWs- 2 and 3. The allegation is that his relatives/family members demanded dowry for performing the marriage has no force at all. Learned counsel would further submit that the court may appropriate orders without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that this is not a fit case for quashing since the charge sheet would show that LWs 11, 12 and 13 were examined to speak to the effect that the petitioners demanded dowry for performing the marriage of A1 and LW2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petition may be disposed of. 5. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the material placed on record, the offence alleged is under Section 4 of D.P.Act and as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, three (3) witnesses were examined to speak to the effect that the alleged demand of dowry 3 alleged to have been made by the petitioners. In that view, this is not a fit case for quashment at this stage. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise their contentions before the Trial Court in defence. The learned Trial Judge may appreciate the same and take appropriate decision over the matter according to law. 6. In that view, the petition is disposed of, without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners. However, the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court is dispensed with unless their presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 02.01.2025 UPS 4 50 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9580 OF 2022 Dated :02.01.2025 UPS