APHC010128852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2790/2025 Between: 1. KONKIMALLA @ KANDIKUPPA SRUTHI, W/O KANDIKUPPA RAJEEV GANDN, D/O KONKIMALLA SREENIVAS CHAKRAVARTHY, AGED 29 YRS, WORKING AS SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE R/O H NO- 5-91, DWARAKA NAGAR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ( NANDYAL II TOWN POLICE STATION). 2. KALVA LAKSHMI DEDEEPYA, W/O KONKIMALLA SIDHARTHA, D/O KALVA MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O, H NO 25168A, SANJEEVA NAGAR, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to and in connection with C.C. No. 1304/2024 dated 22.11.2024 on the file of Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Nandyal, Kurnool District in FIR No. 89/2024 dated 22.06.2024 on the file of the Nandyal II Town Police Station and to quash the same and pass such 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Nandyal, Kurnool District, dated 22.11.2024 on the file of C.C. No.1304/2024 before this Hon‟ble Court and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in connection with C.C. No. 1304/2024 dated 22.11.2024 on the file of Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Nandyal. Kurnool District in FIR No. 89/2024 dated 22.06.2024 on the file of the Nandyal II Town Police Station including the appearance of the petitioner and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2790/2025 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short „Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short „BNSS‟) has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.4, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against her in C.C. No. 1304/2024 dated 22.11.2024 on the file of Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Nandyal, Kurnool District, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Ashok Srivatsava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner herein/A4 is the sister of A1. Her marriage is a love marriage and since the marriage is not with the consent of the family members, she has gone out of the family. He would further submit that the petitioner/A4 has not attended the marriage of A1 and respondent No.2 and she has nothing to do with the things transpired between them. Further, as on the date of their marriage, petitioner/A4 is not in India, she is working in Dubai and placed on record the relevant documents to show that she is not in India during the entire episode. In light of registration of this crime, LOC has been issued against her, she 4 preferred a Writ Petition and obtained favourable orders from this Court. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner/A4‟s passport is going to be expired. The passport authorities did not renew her passport due to registration of this crime against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that they have placed on record, the passport to show the entries regarding the petitioner leaving for Dubai and came back to India. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein and the Court may pass appropriate Orders. 5. As can be seen from the material, the marriage of the A1 and the respondent No.2 took place on 24.02.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that she has not even attended the marriage. The passport entries would show that she has gone to Dubai on 01.01.2023 and came back to India on 09.06.2023. Thereafter, on 08.07.2023, she went back to Dubai. Thereafter on 23.02.2024, she visited India and went back to Dubai on 27.02.2024. Thereafter, in the month of August i.e., from 03.08.2024 to 06.08.2024, she is in India. In the very same month, from 22.08.2024 to 26.08.2024, she is in India. 6. As can be seen from the complaint, charge sheet and statement of the complainant i.e., the respondent No.2, it would show that except omnibus allegations and stray sentence referring the petitioner that they tried to kill her, nothing specific is attributed against her. Furthermore, the passport entries 5 would show that the petitioner/A4 did not even attend the marriage. Hence, the question of her interfering in the family life of the A1 and the respondent No.2 and demanding dowry or trying to kill her are far from truth. In that view continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A4 is sheer abuse of process of law. 7. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Kans Raj v. State Of Punjab1, wherein, it was held as follows:- “For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.” (emphasis supplied) 8. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another2, highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows; 1 AIR 2000 SC 2324 2 2024 INSC 369 6 “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.” 9. In the backdrop of the legal positions referred supra, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, since the case is lodged against the petitioner/A4 only on the account that she is the elder sister, this Court is of the considered view that, in the absence of specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No. 4, continuation of criminal proceedings against her is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against her are liable to be quashed by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNS. 10. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C. No.1304/2024 dated 22.11.2024 on the file of Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Nandyal, Kurnool District. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.11.2025. UPS 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2790/2025 Dated.07.11.2025 UPS 263