APHC010669972022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9832 of 2022 Between: Devineni Venkatarao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 by the Petitioner/Accused seeking quashment of the Proceedings against him in CC No.116 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki. 2. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State and Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the marriage of Petitioner /Accused with the daughter of respondent No.2 was performed on 30.05.2015 in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, Petitioner is a 1 in short ‘the Code’ 2 Software Engineer. Further, the case filed by the daughter of respondent No.2 against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide CC No.45 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki was ended in acquittal on 28.06.2017. Further, their marriage was dissolved before the Court of law vide FCOP No.1572 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The instant CC No.116 of 2019 is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner herein is arrayed as A.1. A.2 and A.3 are the mother and sister of A.1. Learned counsel would submit that the present criminal proceedings are initiated with all false and frivolous allegations and continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law and prays for quashment of the case against him. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent would submit that the Petitioner and his family members demanded the daughter of respondent No.2 for additional dowry and subjected her mentally and physically and due to unbearable harassment, she filed a criminal case against the Petitioner herein and his family members and the said case was compromised on the intervention of elders. Further, the petitioner and daughter of respondent No.2 lead marital life for some time. Thereafter, again the Petitioner and his family members started harassment for additional dowry. Due to unbearable harassment, again she filed a complaint before the Santhamaulur Police Station. Respondent No.2 filed the complaint before the Police and after completion of 3 investigation, Police filed charge sheet vide CC No.116 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki. Learned counsel would submit that the complaint allegations would clearly establish the offence lodged against the Petitioner. Prima facie material is on record against the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor acceded to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and submits that at this stage, there is a verifiable material on record against the Petitioner which requires full length of trial before the Trial Court. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material on record, there are series of cases between the parties. Petitioner and his wife got divorced before the Court of law. 7. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the Police after due investigation filed charge sheet against the Petitioner and the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 506 IPC against the Petitioner/Accused. As rightly put by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, there is a verifiable material on record against the Petitioner which requires full length of trial and then only the truth or otherwise of the facts of the case would reveal. This Court cannot appreciate the evidence on record. The points that would arise for consideration are all disputed questions of fact. Prima facie material would show that there are allegations to attract the offence lodged against the petitioner. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot conduct a mini trial to decide 4 the truth or otherwise of the contentions raised. Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the Criminal Petition and deserves dismissal. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9832 of 2022 19.02.2025 Mjl/*