APHC010707672022 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. 10380 of 2022 Between: Firoz Khan and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. MOHANNAIR RAJEEV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioners/A.1 to A.4, seeking quashment of the Proceedings against them in CC No.7852 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard Sri Mohan Nair Rajeev Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State. Despite service of notice, none represented for the respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 1. For short ‘the Code’ 2 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the marriage of respondent No.2 with Petitioner No.1/A.1 took place on 20.02.2014 at Perzonipet, Vijayawada as per the Muslim religion rites and customs in the presence of elders and it is a second marriage to both of them. Further, the allegations of harassment made against the petitioners are false and fabricated for the purpose of filing this case. Further, Due to the same harassment meted by Petitioner No.1, he left the first wife and now also he has been facing such harassment from respondent No.2. Learned counsel would submit that even as per the charge sheet, there is no demand of dowry made by the Petitioners and hence, the ingredients of the offences lodged against the Petitioners, do not attract to them. Further, Petitioners 2 to 4 are the family members of A.1. Basing on the report given by respondent No.2, Police registered a case and after completion of investigation, filed Charge Sheet against the Petitioners/A.1 to A.4. Learned counsel would submit that except bald and omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed against them. Seeking quashment of the case, the present Criminal Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the presence of the Petitioners may be dispensed with before the Trial Court. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made and in view of the fact that the Petitioners 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4 are the family members of the Petitioner No.1/A.1, 3 the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the Petitioners/A.2 to A.4 before the Trial Court, except on the specific dates as directed by the Trial Court. Since there is a verifiable material against the Petitioner No.1/A.1, the Criminal Petition against the Petitioner No.1/A.1 is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No. 10380 of 2022 19.02.2025 Mjl /*