IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 5649 and 7777 OF 202? PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5649 of 2022:- Between: 1. Thota Ramesh Babu, S/o Late Venkata Ratnnam years, Resident of D. No. 10-52/2/9, Apartment, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam City. 2. Kasa Lalitha @ Thota Lalitha Resident of Door No. Visakhapatnam City. Naidu, Aged about 63 1st Floor, Sterling Heights i W/o Ravi, Aged about 34 I years, Lalitha Colony, Dabagardens, 29-5-1 3. Kasa Ravi, S/o Srinivasa Rao, aged about 46 years. Resident of Door No. 29-5-1, Lalitha Colony, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam City. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 3 to 5 AND 1. Yerramsetty Hemalatha, D/o Yerramsetty Trimurthulu Raghu, aged about 32 years. Residing at Door No. 6-240, 2"" Street, Sri Sai Nagar, Gopalapatnam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam City. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT W/o Pavan 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 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 call for the records relating to C.C. No. 4351 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ Accused No. 3 to 5 herein. 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 stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners/Accused No. 3 to 5 in C.C. No. 4351 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION No.7777 of 2022:- Between: Thota Pavan Raghu, S/o Ramesh Babu, Aged about 32 years. Resident of D. No. 10-52/2/9, 1st Floor, Sterling Heights Apartment, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam City. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 AND 1. Yerramsetty Hemalatha, D/o Yerramsetty Trimurthulu, W/o Pavan Raghu, aged about 32 years. Residing at Door No. 6-240, 2 Sri Sai Nagar, Gopalapatnam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam City. nd Street, ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the Petition circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C. No. 4351 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ Visakhapatnam Accused No.1 herein. l A. NO: 1 OF 2022 that in the Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the of the petitioner/Accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 4351 of 2021 on of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, appearance the file 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 Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri KL.JOJI Sanku Durga Public Prosecutor on AMRUTHA RAJU, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH APHC010378272022 [3396] AT AMARAVATl ■ U. (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAl PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5649/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) Thota Ramesh Babu and Others AND ...RESPONDENT/COlVlPLAINANT(S) Yerramsetty Hemalatha and Others Counsel for the Petltioner/accused(S); 1.SANKU DURGA RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S); 1.KAKUMANU JOJl AMRUTHA RAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7777/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Thota Pavan Raghu AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Yerramsetty Hemalatha and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 8 2 1.SANKU DURGA RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) I 3 > The Court made the following: Accused No. 1, in C.C. No. 4351 of 2021, filed Criminal Petition No. 7777 of 2022, while accused Nos. 3 to 5, in the same case, filed Criminal Petition No. 5649 of 2022. Since the issue involved in these Criminal Petitions is one and the same, at the request of the learned counsel on both sides, these matters are heard together and passed the following Common order. Heard Sri S.D.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that A.1 herein filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 26.08.2019. In the said petition, respondent No.2 filed a counter, stating that she is ready to join her husband. The counter was filed by respondent No.2 after lodging the present case. After two years from the petition filed by the husband, i.e., F.C.O.P. 1435 of 2019 for restitution of conjugal rights, the present case was lodged on 19.09.2021. The petitioners/accused Nos. 3 to 5 are the father, sister, and brother in law of A.1. Learned counsel Would further submit that no specific allegations made against the petitioners/A3 to A5 to continue the criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel would further submit that, except for omnibus and vague allegations, no specific attributions have been made against the petitioners/A3 to A5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that 2. 3. 4. were 4 thecase against A.1 may be dismissed as not pressed and case against A.3 to A.5 may be considered. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the 5. petition and would submit that, there are specific allegations against the petitioners/A.3 to A.5 and accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition. 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 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. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of 6. 7. matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar', held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said Judgments that false implication by way of general ^2022LiveLaw(SC)141 5 omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. ***** 22.Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instance that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. ” (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana 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 8. 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 ^ 2024INSC 369 6 is any grain of truth in the aiiegations or whether they are made oniy with the so/e object of invoiving certain individuais in a criminai charge, more particuiariy when a prosecution arises from a matrimoniai dispute. ” (emphasis supplied) 9. In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another^ the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows: “The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions. ” (emphasis supplied) In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and Another"^, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtheld as follows:; “31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 see 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different 10. ^2024 INSC 896 ''2024 INSC 953 7 complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lai. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants. ” (emphasis supplied) To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that 11. in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present in the contents of the complaint, based on general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of l ic names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. In the backdrop of legal position referred supra, the case of the petitioners has to be scrutinized with great care and caution of factual aspects of the matter. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would 12. submit that Criminal Petition No.7777 of 2022 may be dismissed as not pressed and Court may consider the Criminal Petition No.5649 of 2022 for accused Nos.3 to 5. A case has been lodged against the petitioners after the husband filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the wife filed the - ^ counter expressing her desire to join the husband and instead of i husband in the matrimonial house after two lodged against the petitioners. On careful record joining the years the present case has been scrutiny of the material placed for the petitioners in on as rightly put by the learned Counsel Crl.P.No.5469 of 2022, no specific allegations were made against the petitioners/AS to A5 to continue the criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry View, continuing the criminal proceedings against them Prohibition Act. In that vi IS mere abuse of process of law. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition No.5649 Criminal Petition No.7777 of 2022 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous of 2022 is allowed and is dismissed as not pressed, petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P U V BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Additional Family Judge, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Station House Officer, Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 4. OneCCto Sri Sanku Durga Ramachandra Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies RDB vna m m HIGH COURT DATED:20/02/2025 X: O. 2 9 SEP 2025 mt 60. COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.5649 and 7777 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION N0.5649 OF 2022 IS ALLOWED CRIMINAL PETITION N0.7777 OF 2022 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED