IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI r mi'i FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE a] at O PRESENT HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3530 OF 2022 Between: 1. Pepakayala Govinda Raju, S/o Sri Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Age. 62 Years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o Door No. 1-29/1, Kandregula - 533 462 Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District 2. Pepakayala Bhavani,, W/o Sri Govinda Raju, Hindu, Age. 62 Years, Occ. House Wife, R/o Door No. 1-29/1, Kandregula - 533 462 Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District 3. Kommisetty Srilakshmi,, W/o Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Hindu, Age. 34 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. Plot No. 16, Flat No. 402, New Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 0 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos. 2 to 4 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, through its SHO, Kakinada III Town Police Station, East Godavari. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2. Pepakayala Venkata Lakshmi Bhavani,, R/o. D.No. 16-23-56/1, Rajiv Street, Dairy Farm centre, Kakinada - 533 005, East Godavari District ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -2- : -.!5 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 to call for the records relating to and in connection with CC No. 820 of 2020 on the file of the court of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and quash the same against the Petitioners/A-2 to A-4. I.A. NO: 1 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 dispense with the filing of certified copy of in CC No. 820 of 2020 on the file of the court of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. LA, 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in CC No. 820 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, pending disposal of the present 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 Siva Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri WLN Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following order: APHCO10222362022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3396] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3530/2022 Between: l.PEPAKAYALA GOVINDA RAJU, S/O SRI KRISHNA MURTPIY, HINDU, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O DOOR NO. 1- 29/1, KANDREGULA C 533 462 PEDAPUDI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2.PEPAKAYALA BHAVANI, W/O SRI GOVINDA RAJU, HINDU, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O DOOR NO. 1-29/1, KANDREGULA - 533 462 PEDAPUDI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT W/O VEERA VENKATA SRILAKSHMI, 3.KOMMISETTY SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. PLOT NO. 16, FLAT NO. 402, NEW LAKSHMI NAGAR COLONY, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500 0 .. .PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND l.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT PROSECUTOR, AMARAVATI, THROUGH ITS SHO, KAKINADA ILL TOWN POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI 2.PEPAKAYALA VENKATA LAKSHMI BHAVANI, R/O. D.NO. 16-23- 56/1, RAJIV STREET, DAIRY FARM CENTRE, KAKINADA 005, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 533 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): l.N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.VVLNSARMA The Court made the following: 2 ORDER; The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminajl Procedure, 1973i has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.820 of 2020 2 to 4, on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Classj Kakmada for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, I86O2 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition 19613. Act, 2. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, the Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor State/Respondent No.l and Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, for learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.2 to 4, who is the parents and married sister of Accused Nol, who is the husband of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners to do with the alleged offence. There are have nothing prima facie allegations to no continue the proceedings against them. Learned submit that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been Village, Pedapudi Mandal and Petitioner No.2 has been counsel would further residing in Kandregula residing with her family at Hyderabad. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are bald and omnibus. As such, continuation of for short ‘Cr.P.C’ for short ‘IPC’ for short ‘DP Act’ proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant would submit that there are specific 4. Public Prosecutor, in unison, allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 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.2 to 4 in C.C.No.820 of 2020 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada? 5. Determination by the Court A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code not limited or 6. envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (iij to prevent abuse of the process of any Court 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 substantialjustice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or or. 4 glai-ing injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is alleged in the complaint that, the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.l had taken place on 11.05.2014. marriage, there was exchange of dowry of Ac.0.50 cents of agricultural land, 20 sovereigns of gold, 2 kgs of silver articles, Rs.2.00 lakhs towards 7. At the time of adapaduchu katnam and also a house which is situated at Tilak Street, Kakinada in the name of Respondent No.2. By the time of marriage. Accused No. 1 used to work in Kuwait. At the time of marriage. Accused No.l started harassing Respondent No.2 both physically and mentally. As Respondent No.2 gave birth to a female child. Petitioners herein used to taunt her. While Respondent No.2 and Accused No.l were residing in Kakinada, in the year 2017, Accused No.l left the house by taking away the gold bangles and cash of Rs.6,000/- and had not returned home. When Respondent No.2 enquired with the Petitioners about Accused No.l, they gave evasive reply. 8. In Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand dn another^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “32. Unfortunately, at the time offiling of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object ofjustice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his (2010) 7 see 667 5 . immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana 9. and another^, highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and 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, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima 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. ” ’ 2024 INSC 369 6 10. To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearl) stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present in the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. 11. In the case on hand, as seen from the contents of the complaint well as charge sheet, except stating that the Petitioners/Accuse d Nos.2 4 used to taunt her, on the ground that she gave birth to a female child. as to there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against them. Further, it is not the case of Respondent No.2 that the Petitioners have resided along with her femily under one roof. Further, Petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 is the married sister of Accused No. 1 and she has been residing with her family at Hyderabad. No material is placed on record to connect them with the alleged crime. Except making a casual reference of the names of the Petitioners in the complaint as well as the charge sheet, nothing is attributed against them. In the absence of any specific overt acts against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings against them can be quashed. 12. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.820 of 2020 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicml Jdagistrate of First Class, Kakinada 7 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 1. The Station House Officer, Kakinada III Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. 3. One CC to Sri. N Siva Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri WIN Sharma, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amar^ay,ati,[pUT] Three CD Copies RDB HIGH COURT DATED:28/02/2025 ORDER AND#?;5r^ CRLP.No.3530 of 2022 ml ,=S 2 2 JUt 21125 '!) 'i-. to ^ . Current Seciion . / CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED