1 APHC010683262022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10035/2022 Between: Alanka China Babu and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. KOTA ARCHANA The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10035/2022 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.1 to 4, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in Crime No.430 of 2022 on the file of SHO, Peddapuram Police Station, Kakinada District registered for the offences under Sections 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. 2. Heard Sri K.P.S. Sailesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S.V.S.S Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. K. Archana, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the marriage of A1 and the respondent No.2 took place on 12.12.2014. During the wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter in 2019. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners herein are A1 to A4. A1 is the husband of the respondent No.2. A2 is the mother of A1. A3 is the sister of A1. A4 is the nephew of A1. Learned counsel would further submit that after seven (07) years of alleged cruelty, this case has been lodged. The complaint would show that the respondent No.2 had been residing at her parents’ house since October, 2019. This case has been lodged on 07.11.2022. Learned counsel would further submit that A1 filed FCOP.No.1233 of 2020 and obtained 3 divorce on 19.02.2021. Learned counsel would further submit that A2 to A4 herein are the family members of the husband who have nothing to do with the present case. No specific allegations are made against them and continuing criminal proceedings against them is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the ex-parte divorce obtained by the husband was set aside. Learned counsel would further submit that the address was wrongly shown by the husband and obtained an ex-parte divorce. There are specific allegations made against each of the accused. It is not a fit case for quashment. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders and supported the version of the respondent No.2. 6. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the contents of the complaint, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the present case has been lodged after the husband filed divorce petition after two years of husband filed FCOP.No.1233 of 2020. The contents of the complaint would show that the petitioners/A2 to A4 used to insist the husband/A1 to harass the respondent No.2. The ex-parte divorce obtained by the husband was set aside as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners. As can be seen from the material placed on record, except making omnibus allegations against the petitioners/A2 to A4, there is no reference of any incident alleged that she was subjected to cruelty in the hands of A2 to A4. It is not the case that A3 who is the sister, is staying with A1 and the respondent No.2 under the 4 same roof. The complaint would show that A3 is resident of Paikaraopet and she used to visit the house. A4 was a student pursuing his studies living in the house of grandmother. In absence of any specific incidents referred in the complaint against A2 to A4, that apart, A2 to A4 are the family members of the husband, roping them in criminal case in absence of any specific allegations and by making bald and vague allegations against and continuing such proceedings against A2 to A4 is mere abuse of process of law. However, in view of the specific allegations present as against A1, it is not desirable to quash the proceedings as against him. 7. In that view, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings against Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and the Criminal Petition with regard to Accused No.1 is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 29.01.2025 UPS 5 36 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10035 of 2022 Dt.29.01.2025 UPS