APHC010251692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4001 & 4272 / 2024 Criminal Petition No.4001 of 2024: Between: 1. JAMPANA SURYA BHAGYA LAKSHMI, W/O VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 264/1, GUTTASRIRAMARAO NAGAR NEAR HANUMAN NAGAR, NTR COLONY, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. JAMPANA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 264/1, GUTTASRIRAMA RAO NAAR NEAR HANUMAN NAGAR, NTR COLONY, ELUAI,WEST GODAVARI. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (COMPLAINANT) REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISHA WOMEN P S GUNTUR DISTRICT. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2. JAMPANA SWETHA, W/O RAJESH, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O ANJANEYA SWAMI TEMPLE STREET, GUJJANAGUNDLA, GUNTUR TOWN. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Criminal Petition No.4272 of 2024: Between: 1. GADDI RAMA DURGA BHAVANI, W/O ANAND KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, R/OD.NO. 31-29-2/A, GOVIND ROAD STREET, 0PP. GEETHA SANGEETHA THEATER, ALLIPURAM, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. GADDI ANAND KUMAR,, S/O RAMU, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 31-29-2/A, GOVIND ROAD STREET, 0PP. GEETHA SANGEETHA THEATER, ALLIPURAM, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (COMPLAINANT) REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISHA WOMEN P.S., GUNTUR DISTRICT. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA 2 PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2. JAMPANA SWETHA, W/O RAJESH, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O ANJANEYA SWAMI TEMPLE STREET, GUJJANAGUNDLA, GUNTUR TOWN ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SANDEEP BHAVAN PAMARATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. YASWANTH GADE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C) have been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 & 3 and 4 & 5 respectively, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2914 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Guntur for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’). 2. Heard Sri P.Sandeep Bhavan, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent No.1 and Sri Yaswanth Gade, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are the mother, father, sister and brother-in-law respectively of Accused No.1, who is the husband of Respondent No.2 herein. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations leveled against the 3 Petitioners are false and frivolous. Learned counsel would submit that the present complaint has been lodged as a counterblast to the legal notice dated 02.12.2022 for issued by Accused No.1 to Respondent No.2 and there are no ingredients of the offence either under Section 498-A IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act against the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the Petitioners never resided along with Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 under one roof as such, the question of alleged harassment made by the Petitioners does not arise. It is submitted that the allegations leveled against the Petitioners are general in nature and there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in one voice, would submit that there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners for the commission of the alleged offences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided at full length of trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial Court, Court of Appeal or a Court of Revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is a well settled principle of law that when a 4 prosecution is sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence alleged or not. 6. In the case on hand, it is alleged by Respondent No.2 that her marriage was performed with Accused No.1 on 05.02.202 and at the time of marriage, on the demand of Accused Nos.1 to 4, the parents of Respondent No.2 gave dowry of Rs.15,00,000 lakhs and presented 24 grams of gold kadiyam, 7 grams of gold ring, 20 grams of gold chain and Rs.1,00,000/- to Petitioner /Accused No.4 towards adapaduchu lanchanam and Rs.25,000/- for clothes. They also presented 72 grms of gold Haram, 34 grams of necklace, 48 grams of gold bangles, 18 grams of gold rings, 12 grams of gold bracelet to Respondent No.2. It is further alleged that the parents of Respondent No.2 spent Rs.13,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. Accused also demanded to give Ac.1.00 cents of agricultural land situated in Ponnuru, vacant site worth Rs.15,00,000/- situated in Guntur, for which, the parents of Respondent No.2 agreed. Subsequent to the marriage, Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to harass Respondent No.2 to sell the Ac.1.00 cents of agricultural land and to bring the sale proceeds. Accused Nos.4 and 5 used to come to their house and state that Accused No.1 married Respondent No.2 for lesser dowry. They also used to threaten her to bring the sale proceeds of Ac.1.00 cents of land, otherwise, her marital life with Accused No.1 would not be continued. 7. It is further alleged that, on 26.05.2022 Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 had put up separate family in Hyderabad. By that time, the parents of 5 Respondent No.2 had given an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing household articles. Having not satisfied with the same, Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to demand additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accused Nos.2 to 4 along with the daughter of Accused No.4 used to reside with Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 under one roof. Accused Nos.2 to 4 used to roam around Respondent No.2 and were not allowing her to spend time with her husband. Accused No.1 used to harass and beat Respondent No.2 by suspecting her fidelity. Accused Nos.2 to 4 also used to support Accused No.1 in harassing her. Accused Nos.1 to 5 sent her away from the matrimonial home on 25.09.2022 by demanding her to bring the sale proceeds of the agricultural land of Ac.1.00 cents, from her parents. As such, she lodged the present complaint against all the Accused. 8. On a careful reading of the complaint, this Court finds that the allegations are not vague or casual, but disclose a continuous course of conduct involving, demand of substantial dowry at the time of marriage, persistent post-marriage demands relating to sale of agricultural land, mental cruelty by taunts and threats, and physical cruelty allegedly inflicted by Accused No.1 with active support of other accused. The complaint specifically alleges that Accused Nos.2 to 4 resided along with the couple, interfered in the marital life of Respondent No.2, and actively supported Accused No.1 in harassing her. The allegation that Respondent No.2 was ultimately sent away from the matrimonial home by all the Accused on a specific date demanding further dowry cannot be brushed aside at this stage. 6 9. Merely because Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 initially set up a separate family does not, by itself, absolve the other Accused, particularly when it is alleged that they continued to stay with the couple and actively participated in the acts of cruelty. Whether the allegations are exaggerated, motivated, or false are all matters of evidence, which can be adjudicated only during trial. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial or weigh the defence of the Accused in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. In Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta1, the Supreme Court held that when the complaint discloses specific allegations of involvement of relatives in harassment and cruelty, the High Court should not quash the proceedings at the threshold, as the same requires appreciation of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where the complaint discloses prima facie ingredients of offences under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court should be slow in exercising inherent powers to quash the proceedings, and that disputed questions of fact must be left to the trial Court. 11. In view of the above discussion and the judgment referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint discloses prima facie material against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5. This Court finds no grounds to hold that the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is not a fit case for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 to 5. 1 (2015) 3 SCC 424 7 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:17.11.2025 Dinesh 8 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4001 & 4272 / 2024 Dt.17.11.2025 Dinesh