IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2714 OF 2023 Between: Vadlamudi Akhila, W/o Ayyappa Chowdary, 34 years, resident of resident of 1118 DOE BLOSSOM LN, APEX, North Corolina, USA- 27502-7406. ...Petitioner/5^'’ Accused AND 1. Thalluri Srujana @ Sujana, W/o Ashok, 33 years, resident of Chintalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. ...Defacto-Complainant 2. The State of A.P., represented By the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondents 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 C.C. No. 66 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, that was taken on file under Sections 323, 506, 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against petitioner/accused No.5 as the said proceedings are ft m illegal, abuse of process of law, arbitrary, and unconstitutiona l, opposed to the principles of natural justice. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 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 the further proceedings C.C. No. 66 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, against the petitioner/5th accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Sriram Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri Balaji Medamalli Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. on The Court made the following: APHC010171842023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2714/2023 Between: Vadlamudi Akhila ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Thalluri Srujana Sujana and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 1.N SRIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.BALAJI MEDAMALLI 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.5 in Crime No.145 of 2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 506, 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.66 of 2022, and the taken on file by the Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur. It is submitted that there absolute no allegations against the petitioner. The 1®' respondent referred the name of the petitioner in the complaint alleging that the petitioner used to same is are 2 constantly taunt the respondent, and used to interfere in her personal affairs, and that she was supporting her brother and mother and that all the accused were demanding the petitioner to get the 20 cents of land sold by her father and get the sale proceeds, failing which the respondent would not be acceptable in the family of the petitioner. The police, during the course of the investigation, have recorded the 2. statements of as many as nine witnesses, and it is submitted that none of the witnesses can specifically state the alleged date or time of the alleged harassment meted out by the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3. petitioner is a resident of U.S.A and further submits that the petitioner left for U.S.A on 15.07.2017 and that her stay has been extended from time to time after obtaining the necessary extension from the competent authorities at U.S.A. St The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 1 4. respondent has filed a Maintenance Case before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnur, and in her pleadings in the Maintenance Case, it is specifically stated that on 15.03.2018, the respondent and his family members demanded the petitioner to bring additional dowry after the disposal of the 20 cents of the plot, otherwise she would be kicked out of the family of the respondent. It is submitted that the specific allegation of the alleged incident, even if it is taken to be true as of 15.03.2018, that the petitioner cannot be 3 arrayed as an accused, as the petitioner was not in India on the date of registration of the crime or on the alleged date on which the alleged harassment was meted out to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the 5. listed witnesses specifically state the harassment, and that the harassment cannot be confined to one day as claimed by the petitioner. It is a continuous activity of harassment, and it has to be left to the trial Court to conduct a full-fledged trial before arriving at a conclusion regarding the involvement of the petitioner or otherwise in the commission of the alleged offence. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was not in India on the date of registration of the crime or on the alleged date when the incident of harassment took place. i.e., 15.03.2018. 8. Considering the allegations against the petitioner as true for the purpose of the case, this Court is not convinced that these allegations can draw the penal consequences of Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The allegations are evidently vague, bald, or unanimous insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The trend of implicating the extended family members of the husband in the cases of harassment of women under Section 498-A of IPC 4 and demand for dowry under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition been steadily increasing. Act have 9. The attempt of the estranged wife and her relatives to implicate as many relatives as possible without any specific allegations would only lead the misuse of the protective legislation. On these grounds, this Court to is of the considered view that, on the facts, this case definitely requires consideration, and the case against the petitioner in C.C.No.66 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, deserves to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge (Junior Division): Ponnur, Guntur District. The Station House Officer, Ponnur Rural Police Station, Guntur District. One CC to Sri N Sriram Murthy Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Balaji Medamalli Advocate [OPUC] Twq CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SAM HIGH COURT DATED:23/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2714 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRLP