IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ‘AO ^4 o 0. A W: V PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9433 OF 2022 Between: 1. Yama Stanley Victor, aged 38 yrs, S/o Eshavu, Junior Assistant APSPDCL, Uravakonda, r/o D,No. 6/704-C1, Rajeev Colony, Guntakal Town, Anantapuramu District. 2. Yama Indirarruna, aged 73 yrs, W/o Late Eshavu, r/o D.No. 15/1010 Teachers Colony, Tadipatri Town, Anantapuramu District 3. Yama Samuel, aged 41 yrs, S/o Eshavu, r/o D.No. Colony, Tadipatri Town, Anantapuramu District 15/1010 Teachers ...Petitioners/Accused 1,2 & 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant yrs, W/o Yama Stanley Victor R/o D.No. 4/32, Kanneluru Village Jammalamadugu Town, Kadapa District Complainant 2. Dibbagandia Vijayamma, aged 33 a ...Respondent/Defacto 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 C.C.No. 477 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Jammalamadugu against the petitioners/accused Court I.A. NO: 2 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 stay of all further proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused in C.C.No. 477 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Jammalamadugu. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri R Arun representing Sri V R Reddy Kovvuri Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following:ORDER APHC010642602022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9433 of 2022 Between: Yama Stanley Victor and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): l.HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): l.VR REDDY KOWURI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed, by the Petitioners/A. 1 to A.3 seeking quashment of the Proceedings against them in CC No.477 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 2. Heard Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for the Petitioners/A. 1 to A.3, Ms.K.Priyanka Laskhmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1/State and Sri R.Arun, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kowuri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. . For short ‘the Code’ 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Petitioner No.l/A.l is the husband of respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2/A.2 is the mother and Petitioner N0.3/A.3 is the elder brother of A.l. At the time of marriage, A.l is working as Junior Assistant in Electrical Revenue Office, Uravakonda and after marriage, respondent No.2 joined A.l and all the accused and respondent No.2 lived in one and the same house at Guntakal Town. During wedlock, the couple blessed with two sons. Learned counsel would submit that the health of respondent No.2 is not keeping well and she underwent transplantation of her kidneys. Learned counsel would submit that even on the face of the allegations, there are no allegations made out attracting the ingredients of the offence lodged against the Petitioners. Even according to the FIR and the contents of charge sheet, no single instance of harassment is made against the petitioners but only bald allegations were made that the petitioners harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry. So far as the case of petitioners 2 and 3, who are mother and elder brother of Petitioner No.l are concerned, no specific instances regarding harassment of the respondent No.2 is made out. The petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offence of dowry harassment meted out against Respondent No.2/ de facto complainant. The statements against the Petitioners are mere conjectures and implications and there is no iota of truth in their statements. Hence, prays for quashment of the case against the Petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would fairly concede to the extent to consider the request of the Petitioners 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3 since A.2 is the old aged mother of husband of A.3. A.3 is the brother of A.l. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. 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 ofjustice. 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 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material on record and as rightly put by learned counsel for the Petitioners, even as per the contents of the FIR and the Charge sheet, no specific overtacts attributed against the Petitioners 2 and 3/A.2 and 3, who are mother and brother of A.l with regard to subjecting her to cruelty both physically and mentally for additional dowry. That apart, learned counsel for respondent No.2 also fairly conceded to the extent of considering the case of Petitioners 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3. 8. Petitioner No. 1/A. 1 is the husband of respondent No.2. The truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the petitioners would be revealed 4 during trial. Now it is not the stage for quashment of the him. Proceedings against 9. In result, the Cnminal Petition is partly allowed. The Proceedings against the Petitioners 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3 in CC No.477 of 2021 on the Ole of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu, are hereby as against the Petitioner No. 1/A. 1 is hereby quashed. This Criminal Petition dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. A 1- Sd/-M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Jammalamadugu, Ananthapuramu District. 2. The Station House Officer, Jammalamadugu Police Station Ananthapuramu District. 3. One CC to Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri V R Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies SAM HIGH COURT SAM DATED:28/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.9433 of 2022 ^fSfANDS^ S’ 2 3 MM 2025 s ^ . Curreni j»«cuon PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLP