I-: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY 4 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAP^?^ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5097 OF 2022 ^5 ^£l p m •\o 1 C;> fk 'n \ Between: 1. Karumuri Hari Anka Rao, S/o. Venkateswara 34 years, Rio. Plot No.58, Green Thirunindravur, Thiruvalluru District, Thamilnadu State. Rao, Hindu, aged about Park, Near Sivam Koil Street, 2. Karumuri Aruna, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 57 years, R/o. Plot No.58, Green Park, Near Sivam Koil Street, Thirunindravur. Thiruvalluru District, Thamilnadu State. 3. Karumuri Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Hari Anka Rao years. Hindu, aged about 61 Rio. Plot No.58, Green Park, Thirunindravur, Thiruvalluru District, Thamilnadu State. Near Sivam Koil Street ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh. Through Sub-Inspector of Police Women PS, Krishna District, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Amaravathi. 2. Karumuri Naga Manasa, W/o. Hari Anka Rao years, R/o. Bommuluru Village, Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Andhra Pradesh. , Disha High Court of Hindu, aged about 33 District, ■..RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed 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 Court of Special Judicial First Class M^^gistrate, Machilipatnam I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1299/2021 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GUNTUPALLI SOMA SEKHARA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of Respondent No.1 and of Sri G Narasimha Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following order: APHIC010342472022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY m ■ [3396] "Sas TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5097/2022 Between: 1.KARUMURI HARI ANKA RAO, S/0. VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RIO. PLOT N0.58, GREEN PARK, NEAR SIVAM KOIL STREET, THIRUNINDRAVUR, THIRUVALLURU DISTRICT, THAMILNADU STATE. 2.KARUMURI ARUNA, W/0.VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/0. PLOT N0.58, GREEN PARK, NEAR SIVAM KOIL STREET, THIRUNINDRAVUR, THIRUVALLURU DISTRICT THAMILNADU STATE. 3.KARUMURI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.HARI ANKA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RIO. PLOT N0.58, GREEN PARK, NEAR SIVAM KOIL STREET, THIRUNINDRAVUR, DISTRICT, THAMILNADU STATE. THIRUVALLURU ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISHA WOMEN PS, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AMARAVATHI. 2.KARUMURI NAGA MANASA, W/0. HARI ANKA RAO, HINDU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. RIO. BOMMULURU VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDALAM KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.GUNTUPALLI SOMA SEKHARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following;^. 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1299 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Machilipatnam for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code^ and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961^. 2. Heard Sri G.Soma Sekhara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioners are false and frivolous. Learned counsel would submit that the marriage of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 was a love marriage as such, the question of giving dowry does not arise. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 are old aged persons and have been suffering from several ailments. Learned counsel would finally submit that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short IPC’ 3 for short ‘D.P.Act’ Therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of case. process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that 4. there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners for the commission of the alleged offences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided at full length of trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the 5. learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Point for Determination 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 proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C.No.1299 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Machilipatnam? Determination by the Court 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 6. 7. functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending and circumstances of the case. These on the facts powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ i torch in the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. circumstances are spelt out as follows: 8. Apex Court in State of is considered as the guiding At paras 102 and 103, the 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of aw enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by of illustration wherein such ' ^ way . power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down anv a'uideUnf^T^''-^ sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report coyaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable 'nvestigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. or the “air 1992 SC 604 (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no Investigation Is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. ” (emphasis supplied) A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial Court, 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 9. the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is a well settled principle of law that when a 6 prosecution is sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence alleged or not. In the case on hand, it is alleged by Respondent No.2 that the marriage of Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner/Accused No.1 had taken place on 21.08.2013 and at the time of marriage, the parents of Respondent No.2 gave dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs and presented gold worth Rs.1,50,000/- to 10. Respondent No.2. After the marriage, as Respondent No.2 was doing a job, all her salary had been taken by the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and they also used to harass her by demanding additional dowry of Rs. 10.00 lakhs. Accused No.1 used to beat her indiscriminately by suspecting her fidelity. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also used to support Accused No.1. All the Accused with a view to perform the marriage of Accused No.1 with another woman for getting more dowry, tried to kill Respondent No.2. Having no other go, she reached her parents’ house and has been residing there. As such, she lodged the present complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 3. 11. As seen from the contents of the complaint as well as the charge sheet. there are specific allegations made against the Petitioners/Accu sed Nos.1 to 3 in the commission of the alleged offences. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the father of Respondent No.2 made several phone calls and threatened Accused No.1 with dire consequences and also got issued a legal notice in the name of Respondent No.2 with false and concocted allegations, the same is not a ground to quash the proceedings 7 against the Petitioners. The further contention that the marriage of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 was a love marriage as such, presentation of dowry and demand of additional dowry do not arise, is also not a ground to quash the proceedings against them. The Court cannot throttle the proceedings by entering into merits of the 12. contentions made on behalf of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the criminal proceedings against them cannot be quashed since the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are prima facie made out. As such, the matter requires full-fledged trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. The case does not fall under any of the guidelines in Bhajanlal’s case (supra). There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, at this stage and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the presence of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court is dispensed 13. with, except on the specific dates as directed by the trial Court. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. f SDI- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Krishna District, 2. One CC to SRI. GUNTUPALLI SOMA SEKHARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. G NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies PRK T HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5097 of 2022 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION