APHC010030502023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 509/2023 Between: 1. KHAGGARUNARAO, S/O. ANJANEYULU, AGE 40, RIO. UPPARA, CHINALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. KHAGGABIKSHALU, W/O. ANJANEYULU, AGE 40, UPPARA, CHINALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. KHAGGAANJANEYULU, S/O RAMNAJANEYLU, AGE 40, UPPURA, CHINALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. KHAGGASRINIVASARAO, S/O ANJANEYULU, AGE 45, CAST. UPPARA, CHINALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 5. KHAGGA SIVA, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGE 40, UPPARA, CHINALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 6. KHAGGATHIRUPATHIRAO, S/0 SRINIVASARAO, AGE 29, UPPARA, CHINNALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANUMANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 7. KHAGGASIVANNARAYANA, S/0 SRINIVASARAO, AGE 24, UPPARA, CHINALINGAYAPALEMVILLEGE, KAKUMANUMANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 8. KHAGGAVENKATESWARARAO, S/O SRINIVASARAO, AGE 27, UPPARA, CHINALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 9. KHAGGANAGESWARARAO @ NAGESH, S/O ANJANEYULU, AGE 48, UPPARA, CHINALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 10. KHAGGADURGA @ DHANADURGA, W/O NAGESH, AGE 39, UPPARA, CHINALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 11. NANGANAMVENKAIAH, S/O SRIRAMMURTY, AGE 35, UPPARA, CHINALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2 12. NANGANAMCHENCHUBABU, S/O SRIRAMMURTY, AGE 40, UPPARA, CHINALINGAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KAKUMANUMANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2. KHAGGA LAKSHMI, W/O ARJUN RAO AGE 34, UPPARA, CHINNAKONDRAPADU VILLAGE, PRATHIPADUMADAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 12, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.2755 of 2020 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 and 509 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,18602. 2. Heard Sri G.Arun Showri, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 / State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 12 would submit that the allegations mentioned in the complaint do not disclose specific 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short ‘IPC’ 3 allegations against them. The Petitioners are falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel would further submit that, Petitioner No.1 / Accused No.1 filed had obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against Respondent No.2 and after filing of the said divorce petition, the present complaint has been filed by Respondent No.2 with bald and omnibus allegations. Therefore, continuation prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 establishes prima facie case against the Petitioners. There are no grounds to quash the case against Petitioners. It is further submitted that the allegations made against the Petitioners would squarely attract the offences alleged against them and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Perusal of the complaint as well as charge sheet would disclose that, the married of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 was performed about 21 years ago and during wedlock they both were blessed with two daughters. It is further alleged that, since the marriage, Accused No.1 without looking after the welfare of Respondent No.2, used to subject her to both physical and mental cruelty. Accused No.5 who is the wife of Accused No.4, having extra marital relationship with Accused No.1 used to harass Respondent No.2. Accused No.7 who is the son of Accused No.4 also used to harass Respondent No.2 by making bad propaganda and abusing her in filthy language. Accused Nos.1 to 12 used to threaten her with dire consequences 4 not to inform their acts to anybody. Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to instigate Accused No.1 and all A.1 to A.12 used to harass Respondent No.2 both physically and mentally. Accused Nos.9 and 10, who are the brother and sister-in-law of Accused No.1 also harassed Respondent No.2 by attributing her illegal contacts. 6. Admittedly, Accused No.1 filed HMOP No.81 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla seeking divorce and the same was allowed in 10.11.2021 granting decree of divorce in favour of Accused No.1. However, as seen from the said order, the same was an ex parte order. In view of the specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners, which have to be decided during trial, quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage, is not correct. These are all the matters relating to appreciation of evidence, which is the task of the investigation and trial. At this stage, there are absolutely no valid legal grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court in exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Without prejudice to the available defence in future, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:18.08.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.509 of 2023 Dt.18.08.2025 Dinesh