APHC010035412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1065/2025 Between: 1. HITHA SRI, W/O SUBRAMANYAM, 37 YEARS, DEVANGULA BY CASTE, R/O D.NO.60/27, CHOWDESWARI TEMPLE, RAVINDRA NAGAR, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. 2. RANGALA JANAKI BINDU MOULIKA, W/O GOGGI CHAITANYA KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, CASTE- SATTI BALIJA, R/O F.NO. 302, ASHOK HEIGHT, ASHOTA NAGAR, ROAD NO.1, P.M.PALEM, MADHURUWADA, VISAKAPATNAM - 530041, PH. NO. 6305433070 ...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 pleased to Quash the charge sheet in CC no. 95 of 2022, pending before the Hon‟ble First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam, against the Petitioner/Accused no.3 and pass 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 to stay all the further proceedings against the petitioner/Accused no.3, in CC no.95 of 2022, pending before the Hon'ble First 2 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam pending disposal of the present criminal petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRIDEVI JAMPANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1065/2025 ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short „BNSS‟) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No. 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against her inC.C.No. 95 of 2022, on the file of the learned First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard Ms.Posa Venkata Bhavya, learned Counsel representing on behalf of Mrs.Sridevi Jampani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Despite service of notice to the Respondent No.2, none represented. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the Accused No.3, who is the younger sister of Accused No.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Petitioner never interfered in the family affairs of the Accused No.1 and the Respondent No.2. In fact, she did not even attend the marriage because of the Covid. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Respondent No.2, who is the wife of the Accused No.1, stayed along with the family of Accused No.1 only for ten (10) days. Later, she left for U.K., to join her husband. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that there are no specific allegations made against the Petitioner to continue criminal 4 proceedings against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State opposed the petition and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the marriage of the Accused No.1 and the Respondent No.2 took place on 30.05.2021. Even according to the contents of the complaint, she stayed for a few days in the house of her in-laws. Thereafter, she left to her parents‟ house and Accused No.1 left for U.K. After some time, the Respondent No.2 joined her husband at U.K and then disputes arose between them. It is the version of the Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner being the sister of Accused No.1, used to support the Accused No.1. As can be seen from the record, no specific allegations are made against the Petitioner, except omnibus allegations. Except reference of the Petitioner in the complaint that she used to support her brother, nothing is attributed against her. 6. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar1, held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 5 without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. ***** 22.Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instance that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” (emphasis supplied) 7. 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; “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record 2 2024 INSC 369 6 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.” (emphasis supplied) 8. Recently, in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another3, the Hon‟ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:: “The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions. It appears that in the case on hand despite raising of specific contentions which require deeper consideration, may be taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the complainant that the challan was presented and the matter stood listed for framing charges and hence, it would be open to accused No.5 to raise all plea at the time of framing of the charges, the Court refrained itself from considering the contentions raised against accused No.5.” (emphasis supplied) 9. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and Another4, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:: “31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 3 2024 INSC 896 42024 INSC 953 7 (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” (emphasis supplied) 10. Recently, the three judge bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sanjay D.Jain and Ors. V. State of Maharastra5 held as follows: “9. … As regards the ingredients for making out an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code is concerned, the requirement is that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb 52025 INSC 1168 8 or health. The latter part of the provision refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. 10. … It is also to be noted that for the purpose of constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, cruelty as indicated in the Explanation to the said provision must be stated to be inflicted. The cruelty caused by the husband and his family members should be of such nature that it is inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. …” (emphasis supplied) 10. To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present in the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. 11. In the backdrop of the Legal positions referred supra, as rightly put by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, continuing criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is sheer abuse of process of law. 12. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings pending against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in C.C.No. 95 of 2022, on the file of the learned First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9 Vishakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 20.11.2025. UPS 10 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1065/2025 Dated.20.11.2025 UPS 33