IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4390 OF 2021 Between: 1. Pinniboiyna Rama Devi @ Ramya, W/o Ajaneyulu, aged 24 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 1st Floor, Dattasai Nilayam, Lakshmi Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad. 2. G. Anjana (mentioned as Anjana Kumari in FIR), W/o. G.K. Rama Rao, aged 40 years, R/o. Perala Village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 AND 6 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Guntur Urban District Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT Smt. Vineela Parvathi Jakkula, W/o. Jakkula Nagaraju, aged 26 years, Rio. D.No.16-30-45/7,8, 2/9th Lane, Yadavala Bazaar, Old Guntur, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO 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 may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.179 of 2021 on the file of the Women Police Station, Guntur Urban District, against the Petitioners/Accused 3 and 6, are concerned. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 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 proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners accused No.3 and 6) in FIR.No.179 of 2021 on e file of the Women Police Station, Guntur Urban District, pending disposal of this Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri G Kondala Rao Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010274642021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4390/2021 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) Pinniboiyna Rama Devi @ Ramya, and Others AND ‘ ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.G KONDALA RAO The Court made the following: -2- CRLP. No.4390 of 2021 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4390 of 2021 ORDER: 1. The petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.3 and 6 in Crime No. 179 of 2021 on the file of the Women Police Station, Guntur Urban District. 2. The 1®* petitioner is the daughter of the 1®* accused sister. The 2 petitioner is alleged to have intimacy with the 1®* accused. The 2 nd nd respondent has filed a complaint alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, ‘I.P.C.’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act^ 1961. 3. The 2"^^ respondent was married to the 1®* accused on 14.08.2014. It is also alleged that the 2'^'^ respondent was harassed by the accused physically and mentally and demand for dowry was made. Though the crime was registered in the year 2021, so far the police have not filed charge sheet. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, even as per the averments in the complaint, none of the allegations would attract the penal consequences of the offences charged. The learned counsel further submits that there was a proposal to get the 1®^ petitioner married to the 1®* accused. However, for various reasons, the said proposal did not materialize. The only allegation -3- CRLP. No.4390of 2021 against the 1®* petitioner in the complaint is that the petitioner used to constantly say that because of the a"'" respondent, she was unable to marry the 1 accused, the allegations against the 2"^ petitioner are concerned, it 5. Insofar as is alleged in the complaint that the 1"' accused was maintaining illicit petitioner. It is also submitted that the nd relationship with the 2 relationship if any between the 1“ accused and the 2"“ petitioner consensual relationship. Such ought to be considered as a relationship cannot attract the provisions of Sections 498-A and 506 of l.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. accused has filed H.M.O.P. No.61 of 6. It is also submitted that the 1 the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, seeking dissolution of the marriage between the 1^^ accused and the 2021 on 2'’'^ respondent. It is further submitted that after receipt of notice in nd respondent has filed a false complaint on the H.M.O.P., the 2 16.07.2021. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2"^^ respondent submits that the 1®' accused has been able to manage the police and though the crime was registered in the yfear 2021, the police have so far not filed the charge sheet. This is a deliberate attempt on the part of the 1®^ accused in delaying the due process of law. 8. It is further submitted that the 1 divorce and the same is resisted by the 2"'' respondent. It is also accused has filed H.M.O.P. for -4- CRLP. No.4390 of 2021 submitted that there is absolutely no connection between filing the H.M.O.P. seeking dissolution of the marriage by the 1®' accused and filing of a criminal complaint against the 1®^ accused and others for punishing them for the various offences committed by them. 9. It is also submitted that the 2"^ respondent in a fond hope of change in attitude of the 1®‘ accused and keeping in view the future of the children and herself, she had restrained herself from filing a complaint against the misdeeds of the 1®^ accused and others. This ought not to be considered as detrimental to the pursuit of justice by the 2"^^ respondent. 10. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2"^ respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the record, accused and the 1 petitioner is the niece of the 1 petitioner’s mother is also arraigned as an accused in the crime. The petitioner in the 11. The 1 only reference which is made against the 1 complaint is that she used to constantly taunt the 2'"'' respondent by stating that the 1®* petitioner was unable to marry the 1®* accused and that the same was against the will of her grandparents (parents of the 1®^ accused). These allegations cannot constitute an offence under Section 498-A or Section 506 of I.P.C. Evidently, there is no demand for dowry by the 1®^ petitioner. The demand, if any, for -5- CRLP. No.4390 of 2021 dowry or other gifts would revolve around the other accused and not the petitioner herein. 12. It is also pertinent to mention that the 1 subsequently and is living separately with her husband, continuance of this case against the petitioner is not desirable. That apart, there are absolutely no allegations in the complaint against the 1®' petitioner. In the absence of specific allegations and in the absence of any specific overt acts against the petitioner no purpose would be served in continuing this case against the 1 petitioner. 13. Insofar as the 2"^^ petitioner is concerned, she is a stranger to the of A.1 to A.5 and the 2"^ respondent. The 2"'^ petitioner is a petitioner married family reported to have alleged illegal intimacy with the 1"' accused and this relationship caused severe problems in the marital life of 1"' accused and the 2"'^ respondent. nd moment that the allegation against the 2 petitioner is true and that the same is to be taken into consideration for all purposes, provisions of Sections 498-A and 506 of l.P.C. and of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be made 14. Even assuming for a Sections 3 and 4 applicable. This Court is not giving a finding.on the existence or alleged illegal intimacy between the 1®* accused and made clear that the allegations cannot constitute the offences alleged otherwise of the petitioner. However, it is against the 2"^^ petitioner against the 2"*^ petitioner. the 2nd ■ m-"-- -6- CRLP. No.4390of2021 15. On these grounds this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 179 of 2021 of the Women Police Station, Guntur Urban District, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. 17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. SD/- U.SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division); Chirala, Guntur District. 2. The Station House Officer, Guntur Urban Womens Police Station, Guntur District. 3. One CC to Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri G Kondala Rao Advocate [OPUC] to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 5. Two CC's Amaravati [OUT] 6. THREE CD COPIES SAM TAC high court DATED-.17/03/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4390 of 2021 O5 gf 2 9 SEP 2025 Secti0Bx<^;7 allowing the crlp