APHC010686982022 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. 10128 of 2022 Between: Shaik Abdul Saleem ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BASHEER AHMED Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU 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.376 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Podili. 2. Heard Sri Basheer Ahmed, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State and Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for respondent No.2/State. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that only to harass the petitioner, the present case has been lodged by the respondent No.2/wife with an ulterior motive to get divorce. Further, the complaint filed by 1 in short ‘the Code’ 2 respondent No.2 would not disclose any ingredients to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Learned counsel would highlight that on the face of the complaint, does not disclose any demand of additional dowry made by the Petitioner. At best, the allegations made in the report may attract the offence under Section 506 IPC. 4. To buttress his contention, reliance is made on the decision in Digambar and another V. The State of Maharashtra and Another2 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2122 of 2020, dated 20.12.2024], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at Paragraphs 17, 18 and 32 held as under: 17. Firstly, the allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC must be examined. The said provision reads as under: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty” means— (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 2. 2024 INSC 1019 3 18. 2024 INSC 1019 3 18. The ingredients for an offence to be made out under Section 498-A of IPC require that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The second part of this Section refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. In the present case, no allegations which would fulfil the requirement of the second part are found. 32. These facts lead us to conclude that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurizing the son of the appellant herein to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant and the proceedings were used as a weapon by the complainant in the personal discord between the couple. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the Petition and would submit that the contents of the report submitted to the Police by respondent No.2 would clearly disclose the allegations to attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Further, FIR is not an encyclopaedia to the facts of the. During the course of investigation, respondent No.2 stated before the Police in clear terms that due to unbearable harassment made by the Petitioner/husband, she filed the report before the police, wherein, she categorically stated that she was subjected to harassment both physically and mentally in the hands of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is facing the allegations of committing murder of his sister’s husband. Learned counsel would submit that prima facie material is on record 4 to continue the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner for the offences lodged against him. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.2. 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 offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC against the Petitioner/Accused. The contentions raised in the petition regarding delay in giving the report to the police, is two days. It is a common fact in the matrimonial cases like the instant case. This delay is left to the discretion of the Trial Court to take a decision accordingly. 8. 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. Prima facie material would show that there are allegations to attract the offences lodged against the petitioner. This Court does not find any warranting circumstances to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. In the light of the aforesaid, the criminal petition deserves dismissal. 9. 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. 10128 of 2022 19.02.2025 Mjl/*