IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: OF 2022 Between: Arumalla Brahmananda Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, Chinaparimi Village, Tsundur Mandal, Guntur District. aged 56 years, R/o. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (S.H.O Tsundur SPSR Nellore) Rep. by Public Prosecutor Pradesh, Amaravathi. Police Station, Tsundur, High Court of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Suresh Reddy, D/o. Atiuri years, R/o. Dr. No. 2. Arumalla Sowmaya, W/o. Arumalla Venkateswara Reddy, aged 25 Amaravathi Plots, Chenchupet, Tenali. 10-73-5/1, ...RESPONDENT/DEFATCO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds the High Court to quash the order dated 31-01 283/2021 C.C.No. 211/2021 Division), Tenali, Guntur District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2n?? praying that in the of Criminal Petition, -2021 passed in CrI.M.P.No. on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Junior 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 stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 211/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge.(Junior Division,) Tenali Guntur District including appearance of the. petitioner/ Accused No.3 pending the criminal petition and to pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/s MARELLA RADHA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K. JYOTHI PRASAD Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010130832022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY m i [3396] TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PEfiTION NO: 2244/2022 Between: 1.ARUMALLA BRAHMANANDA REDDY, S/0. KOTI REDDY, AGED 56 YEARS, R/0. CHINAPARIMI VILLAGE, TSUNDUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHFRA PRADESH, (S.H.O TSUNDUR POLICE REP. BY PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATION, TSUNDUR, SPSR NEILORE) PROSECUTOR AMARAVATHI. 2.ARUMALLA SOWMAYA, W/0. ARUMALLA SURESH REDDY, D/0. ATLURI VENKATESWAFRA REDDY, AGED 25 YEARS, R/0. DR.NO.' 10-73-5/1, AMAFRAVATHI PLOTS, CHENCHUPET, TENALI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MARELLA IRADHA Counsel for the Respondent/comF>lainant(S): 1.KJYOTHI PRASAD 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) ; The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking quashment of the Order of cognizance dated 31.(|1.2021 passed in CrI.M.P.283 of 2021 in C.C.No.211 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, ’ for short‘Cr.P.C’ . 2 Tenali, Guntur District against .him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. Heard Ms.Marella Radha, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri 2. K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Responden t No.1.; Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner 3. herein is the uncle of Accused No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no specific incident referred to against the Petitioner. It is submitted that, Petitioner/Accused No.2 is no way concerned with the alleged offence. Learned counsel would further submit that, as the Police deleted the name of the Petitioner from the charge sheet, R Indent No.2 exaggerated the role of Petitioner/Accused No.3 in the protest petition. Learned counsel j would finally submit that, except bald and omnibus^llegations, no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioner. Therefore, taking cognizance against the Petitioner is an abuse of process/6f law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the order of cognizande^gairlst the Petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the : i Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Subba Rao and others vs. State of Telangaha & Others^ and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Desavath Rama Naik and others vs. State of A.P and another'^. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that, at the instigation of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 only. Accused Nos.1 and 2 2 for short “IPC’ ^ (2018) 14 see 452 “ 2023 (2) ALD (erl.) 831 (AP) 3 harassed Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that, there are specific allegations against the Petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during trial. Learned counsel would further submit that, there are no :tenable grounds to quash the order of cognizance against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version f learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Point for Determination 6. i Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both’ the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the Order of cognizance dated 31.01.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.283 of 2021 in 0.0^0.211 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District ! against the Petitioner? Determination by the Court 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary: (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a 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 4 - ."V of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against |f sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging that, the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 had taken place about four years prior to lodging of the present cornplaint. At the time of marriage, the parents of Respondent No.2 gave agricultural land of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs, 15 sovereigns of gold and household articles worth Rs.1.00 lakh were given to the Accused. Thereafter, Accused Nos.1 and 2 along with Petitioner/Accused No.3 used to subject her to both physical and mental cruelty by demanding her to sell away the Ac.0.50 cents of land and to bring the sale proceeds and also by demanding additional dowry. At the instigation of Petitioner/Accused No.3, Accused Nos.1 and 2 abused and beat her and also sent her out of the matrimonial home by demanding reasons 8. additional dowry. As such, she lodged a complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 3, which was registered as a case in Crime No.70 of 2017 on the file of T.Sundur Police Station, Guntur for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Police, after due investigation, on examination of the neighbouring witnesses, having found that the Petitioner/Accused No.3, who is the junior paternal uncle of Accused No.1 never interfered with the family affairs of Accused No.1 and i is no way concerned with the alleged Offence, deleted his name, and filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 drid 2 only for the alleged offence. Aggrieved, thereby Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition, wherein the learned trial Judge had taken cognizance of the offence against the 5 Petitionerttccused No.3 also. Imp^ftiing the said ' V has been filed by the Petitioner. order, the present petition 9. As seen from the allegations levelled in the complaint, except stating that at the instigation of the Petitioner/Accused No.3, Accused Nos.1 and 2 dowry, no specific instances have been mentioned, gased on the bald and omnibus allegation of instigation on the part of the Peiitioner, he used to harass Respondent No.2 by; demanding additional cannot be implicated in the present case. Learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order by taking into consideration of Section 161(3) Cr^.C statements of Respondent No.2, her mother and father, who are interested witnesses. Further, Police on recording of the statements of the independent witnesses having found no prima facie case against the Petitioner, deleted his name from the charge sheet. 10 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another^, highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration apd 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 any specific instances of criminal conduct, Jt is nothing but abuse of the of the court. The court process ® subject the allegations levelled m the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out pnma 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. ” ’ 2024INSC 369 6 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court i Another®, held as follows: in Pay^ ;3harma Vs. State of Punjab and made on behalf of the comolainarii fhJf f^ FF^^ submissions and the matter stood listed for frarrih^ihF presented be open to accused Nost ratio pTlTatfhetfme “■'' charges, the Court refrainiic^^it framing of the \ raised against accused No. 5. ’’ considering the contentions on 12. To summarize the judgments referred in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial iota or whisper of allegations j supra, it can be clearly stated that matters, when there IS no present in the contents of the complaint, general, vague and omnibus of names of relatives of the husband necessary for the ingredients under the sLtion allegations and mere casual reference cannot be taken into account to sustain In the case the accusations. 13. on hand, as seen from the contents of the complaint, there to attract the ingredients of are no specific allegations against the Petitioner the offence alleged against him. Further, it i No.2 that the Petitioner IS not the case of Respohdent resided along with her family under one roof. No material is placed on record to connect^Wm with the alleged crime. Except the name! of the Petitioner in the complaint, against him. In the, absence of any specific overt acts making a casual reference of nothing is attributed ® SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022, . ■ >■ dated 26.11.2024 7 against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, this Court is of the view that taking cognizance of the offence against him is a sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case for quashment by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. In result, the Criminal Petition ts allowed and the Order of cognizance dated 31.01.2021 passed in Crl.M;P.283 of 2021 in C.C.No.211 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District against him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, is hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SC- / SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Tenali, Guntur District. 2. The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Tenali, Guntur District. 3. One CC to SRI. MARELLA RADHA Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. K JYOTHI PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor High Court of AP Amaravati [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies PRK HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2244 of 2022 i 2 <1 JUL 2025 caVi mi Co ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION