IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9514 OF 2022 Between: 1. Veeragadendla Bala Guravappa, S/o. Venkataiah, aged about 61 years, R/o. D.N0.4-9A, Pedda Kattala Village, Nandyala Mandal, Kurnool District, 2. Veeragadendla Krishna Kumari,, W/o. Bala Guravappa, aged about 56 years, R/o. D.No.4-9A, Pedda Kattala Village, Nandyala Mandal, Kurnool District, 3. Vadde Swathi, W/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 29 years, R/o. D.No.1- 63, Kondanamayumapalli Village, OWK Mandal, Kurnool District, 4. Challa Sruthi, W/o. Venkata Ramana, aged about 29 years, R/o.D.No.4- 33, BC Colony, Sreenagar Village, Mahandi Marldal, Kurnool District, { 5. Battula Lavanya, W/o. Naga Raju Sri, aged about 26 years, R/o.Govindapalli Village, Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool District Vadde Venkateswarlu, S/o. Got/inda Rajulu, aged about 36 years, R/o! D.No.1-63, Kondanamayumapalli Village, OWK Mandal, Kurnool District, 6. 7. Battula Nagarju, S/o. China Jagannadaiah, aged about 33 years, R/o.Govindapalli Village, SiriveHa Mandal, Kurnool District ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 8 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 2. Devangula Hemasri, W/o.Veeragadendla Venkata Srinivasulu, aged about 30 years, R/o.D.No.7-19, Sai Nagar, Guntupalli, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District % % m-y ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the ... circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to call for the records in CC. No. 4453 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble IVth Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in so far as petitioners/A2 to A8 are concerned and quash the same I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceed including the appearance of petitioners/A2 to A8 are concerned in CC. No. 4453 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble IVth Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Vijayawada N This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K RATHANGA PANI REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the. Respondent No.1 and of Sri RAVI KUMAR KANCHARLA, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORlDER : /•e APHC010647222022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) / [3396] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable dr justice VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9514/2022 Between: Veeragadendla Bala Guravappa and Others AND ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S): TK RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.RAVI KUMAR KAMCHARLA Thfe Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) ORDER- The instant Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 8, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.4453 of 2022 on the file Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners. 2. 2 4^ Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned counsel representing the learned 3. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 is in attendance. \ 4. Notice served on respondent No.2. For respondent No.2, Sri Ravi Kumar Kancharla, learned counsel is on record, but there is no representation. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 to 8 herein are, A2 & A3 are the parents of A1, A4 to A6 are 5. the married sisters of A1. A7 and A8 are the brother-in-laws of A1. Learned counsel would submit that the entire allegations made against the husband except omnibus and vague allegations made against the petitioners, nothing is in specific against the petitioners, either to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC or under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel would further submit that only to harass the petitioners, this case has been lodged. This case is lodged against all the family members of the husband as an arm twist to bend A1 and to settle their scores. Learned counsel would further submit that in absence of any allegations, prima facie to attract the offences alleged continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, it is not a fit case for quashment '‘"■•a when there is a verifiable material which requires investigation at the full length of trial is present in the matter and this Court cannot quash. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 3 Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the contents of the 7. complaint, other material placed on record would show that there are allegations made against A2 to A6 to the effect that they have demanded additional dowry for reunion of the family. The specific allegations made against A4 to A6 also. They have demanded 5 tulas of gold each for reunion of the family. As rightly put by learned counsel for the petitioners, the main allegations are against the husband. The record further shows the reference of A2 to A6 is specific admission of additional dowry is present in this matter. In that view, the case can’t be quashed against A2 to A6. Coming to the case of A7 and A8, except a casual reference that they have also supported A1, nothing is alleged against them that they have harassed Respondent No.2 or demanded any additional dowry. In that view, continuing criminal proceedings against A7 and A8 are sheer abuse of process of law. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. 8. State ofBihar\ 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, 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 12022 LiveLaw(SC) 141 4 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 instances, 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) V 9. in the light of aforementioned premises, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed for Accused Nos., 7 and 8 and is dismissed for Accused Nos., 2 to 6. However, the presence of Accused Nos. 2 to 6 before the trial court is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically directed by the trial court. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// n^ SECTI ON OFFICER To 1. The IVth Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada 2. One CC to SRI. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. RAVI KUMAR KANCHARLA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies Sm '•TAC HIGH COURT DATED;04/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.9514 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION IN PART