APHC010700672022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10286/2022 Between: 1. THAMANAM SAMPATH KUMAR, S/O. PADMARAO, AGED 35 YEARS, RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, ELECTRICIAN IN OHE DEPARTMENT, NEAR KRISHNA CANAL RAILWAY STATION, KRISHNA CANAL. 2. MEDIDA VIJAYA DURGA, W/O MEDIDA ANAND, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. M.R. NAGAR, BAPATLA TOWN, NOW BAPATLA DISTRICT. 3. THAMANAM KANAKARATNAM, W/O. PADMARAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. M.R. NAGAR, BAPATLA TOWN, NOW BAPATLA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. 2. THAMANAM SUREKHA, W/O. SAMPATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O. BATHULA SOMAIAH, R/O. ETHERU VILLAGE, BAPATLA MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI 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, has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.356 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla, for the offences 2 punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 509 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19612. 2. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Though notice was sent to Respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that a false case has been foisted against the Petitioners with bald and omnibus allegations. Learned counsel would further submit that, the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses, do not disclose any offence against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would pray for quashment of the case against the Petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial is going on before the trial Court and at this stage, the case against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. As seen from the material on record, in view of the submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that that trial has been commenced, this Court called for the report of the learned trial Judge with regard to the stage of the matter. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge has submitted a report dated 11.02.2025 stating that, in the above case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, 1 for short ‘IPC’ 2 for short ‘DP Act’ 3 Ex.P.1 was marked and the matter is pending for the evidence of rest of the witnesses and summons were also issued to L.Ws.3 to 9. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, since the above C.C is at the stage of part heard, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:11.02.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10286 of 2022 Dt.11.02.2025 Dinesh