1 APHC010528182024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 742, 758, 757 & 759/2024 Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2024: Between: PEETA RAMAN, S/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O.5-178A, BLOCK-2, FLAT NO.302, GVS YAKKALI HEIGHTS, IPPATAM ROAD, LAL BAHADUR NAGAR (LB NAGAR), MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503. ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI. 2. MRS PRIYANKA SONKAMBLE, W/O. PEETA RAMAN, AGE.34 YEARS, OCC.ADVOCATE OF AP HIGH COURT, R/O. M/S.PRIYA LAW CHAMBERS, FLAT NO.228, 2ND FLOOR, B-BLOCK, NEAR YSRCP CENTRAL PARTY OFFICE, POOJITHA WATER FRONT APARTMENTS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503. C/O.9-19, PLOT NO.86, NEAR RENUKA MATHA TEMPLE, SRI SAI NAGAR, DASNAPUR, ADILABAD, TELANGANA - 504001. C/O. AP HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, AP HIGH COURT PREMISES, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2024 IN CRL.A.NO.742 OF 2024. ...RESPODENT(S): Criminal Appeal No.758 of 2024: Between: 1. PEETA MANGAMMA, S/O. PEETA VENKATESWARLU, AGE 63 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O.KAMINENIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, ARUMBAKA POST, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. PEETA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. PITCHAIAH, AGE 72 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O.KAMINENIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, ARUMBAKA POST, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 ...APELLANT(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI. 2. MRS PRIYANKA SONKAMBLE, W/O. PEETA RAMAN, AGE.34 YEARS, OCC.ADVOCATE OF AP HIGH COURT, R/O. M/S.PRIYA LAW CHAMBERS, FLAT NO.228, 2ND FLOOR, B-BLOCK, NEAR YSRCP CENTRAL PARTY OFFICE, POOJITHA WATER FRONT APARTMENTS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503. C/O.9-19, PLOT NO.86, NEAR RENUKA MATHA TEMPLE, SRI SAI NAGAR, DASNAPUR, ADILABAD, TELANGANA - 504001. C/O. AP HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, AP HIGH COURT PREMISES, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2024 IN CRL.A.NO.758 OF 2024. ...RESPODENT(S): Criminal Appeal No.757 of 2024: Between: 1. PEETA NEWTON, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. LIC AGENT, R/O. 9-91/3, CHERUKUPALLI, BAPATIA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. PEETA SATYAVATHI, W/O. PEETA NEWTON, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE, R/O. 9-91/3, CHERUKUPALLI, BAPATIA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...APELLANT(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI. 2. MRS PRIYANKA SONKAMBLE, W/O. PEETA RAMAN, AGE.34 YEARS, OCC.ADVOCATE OF AP HIGH COURT, R/O. M/S.PRIYA LAW CHAMBERS, FLAT NO.228, 2ND FLOOR, B-BLOCK, NEAR YSRCP CENTRAL PARTY OFFICE, POOJITHA WATER FRONT APARTMENTS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503. C/O.9-19, PLOT NO.86, NEAR RENUKA MATHA TEMPLE, SRI SAI NAGAR, DASNAPUR, ADILABAD, TELANGANA - 504001. C/O. AP HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, AP HIGH COURT PREMISES, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2024 IN CRL.A.NO.757 OF 2024. ...RESPODENT(S): 3 Criminal Appeal No.759 of 2024: Between: 1. KUDUMU SAILAJA DEVI, D/O. KUDUMU SRINIVASULU, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O. 12-2-418/1/C, FLAT NO.401, KONDAVEETI TOWERS, MURAD NAGAR, MEHIDIPATNAM HYDERABAD-500028. ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI. 2. MRS PRIYANKA SONKAMBLE, W/O. PEETA RAMAN, AGE.34 YEARS, OCC.ADVOCATE OF AP HIGH COURT, R/O. M/S.PRIYA LAW CHAMBERS, FLAT NO.228, 2ND FLOOR, B-BLOCK, NEAR YSRCP CENTRAL PARTY OFFICE, POOJITHA WATER FRONT APARTMENTS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503. C/O.9-19, PLOT NO.86, NEAR RENUKA MATHA TEMPLE, SRI SAI NAGAR, DASNAPUR, ADILABAD, TELANGANA - 504001. C/O. AP HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, AP HIGH COURT PREMISES, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2024 IN CRL.A.NO.759 OF 2024. ...RESPODENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. V R MAHESWARA RAO PALETI The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2024 has been preferred by the Appellant/Accused No.1 against the cognizance order dated 10.04.2024 passed against him in SC (SPL) No.47 of 2024 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Speedy Trial of SCST Court, Guntur for the offences under Sections 294(b), 498-A, 307 and 506 read with 34 IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3 (2) (va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. 4 Criminal Appeal Nos.758 & 757 of 2024 have been preferred by the Appellants/Accused Nos.2 & 3 and 4 & 5 respectively against the cognizance order dated 10.04.2024 passed against them in SC (SPL) No.47 of 2024 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Speedy Trial of SCST Court, Guntur for the offences under Sections 498-A read with 34 IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3 (2) (va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. Criminal Appeal No.759 of 2024 has been preferred by the Appellant/Accused No.6 against the cognizance order dated 10.04.2024 passed against him in SC (SPL) No.47 of 2024 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Speedy Trial of SCST Court, Guntur for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. 2. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the Appellants / Accused Nos.1 to 6, Sri V.R.Maheswara Rao Paleti, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 / State. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that, Respondent No.2 being a practicing advocate, falsely implicated the appellants herein in a false case. Learned counsel would further submit that, without there being any prima facie case made out against the Appellants, the learned trial Judge erroneously had taken cognizance of the offences against them. It is further submitted that, there are no ingredients to attract the offences alleged against the Appellants. Learned counsel would submit that, Appellant / Accused No.1 and Respondent 5 No.2 have been in live-in relationship. Accused No.1 had obtained divorce from his wife i.e., Appellant / Accused No.6 vide Order dated 04.06.2010 in O.P.No.1072 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Family Judge, Hyderabad and against the said order, Appellant /Accused No.6 preferred appeal in F.C.A.No.157 of 2010 on the file of High Court of Telangana and the same was allowed vide Order dated 31.10.2022. It is further submitted that, having got knowledge about the said order dated 31.10.2022, Respondent No.2 started behaving rudely with Accused No.1, since the marriage between her and Accused No.1 was not accepted by his family members. It is further submitted that, Respondent No.2 never lived together with Appellants / Accused Nos.2 to 6. Learned counsel would further submit that, except the bald and omnibus allegations, there is no material to connect the Appellants with the offences alleged against them. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance against the Appellants, is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel would submit that, Appellant / Accused No.2 died. Hence, prayed to set aside the order of cognizance passed against the Appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gangula Ashok and another vs. State of A.P1, State of Karnataka vs. M.Devendrappa and another2, Union of India vs. Prakash P.Hinduja and another3, Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and others4, State of Karnataka and another vs. Pastor P.Raju5, Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of 1 (2000) 2 SCC 504 2 (2002) 3 SCC 89 3 (2003) 6 SCC 195 4 (2004) 7 SCC 338 5 (2006) 6 SCC 728 6 Maharashtra and others6, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another7, State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others8, Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another9, Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation10, Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another11, Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and another12, Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and another13. 4. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that the statement of the victim would clearly show the ingredients of the offences alleged against Appellant / Accused No.1. It is further submitted that, Appellants / Accused Nos.2 to 6 also supported Accused No.1 in commission of the said offences. It is submitted that, there are specific allegations against the Appellants with regard to the commission of the offences alleged against them, and as such, the learned trial Judge had rightly taken cognizance of the offences against the Appellants. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during trail and at this premature stage, the proceedings against the Appellants cannot be quashed. It is further submitted that the provisions of SCST Act are victim centric. There are no grounds to quash the cognizance order passed against the Appellants. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeals. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. State of 6 (2009) 3 SCC 789 7 (2012) 10 SCC 303 8 (2011) 14 SCC 770 9 (2014) 8 SCC 273 10 (2015) 4 SCC 609 11 (2018) 6 SCC 454 12 (2019) 6 SCC 203 13 (2020) 3 SCC 794 7 Maharashtra and others14, Bhushan Kumar and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another15 and Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another16. Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises is: Whether the impugned cognizance order dated 10.04.2024 passed against the Appellants / Accused Nos.1 to 6 in SC (SPL) No.47 of 2024 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge- cum-Speedy Trial of SCST Court, Guntur, is sustainable or not? Determination by the Court 6. It is alleged against the Appellants that, Respondent No.2 is a practicing advocate in High Court of A.P. In the year 2011, she joined as a Junior Lawyer in the offence of Accused No.1, who is also a practicing advocate. The acquaintance between her and Accused No.1 turned into love and he stated that he got divorce from his wife and married Respondent No.2 with the consent of her parents. Three days after the marriage, Accused No.1 started harassing Respondent No.2 both physically and mentally by demanding dowry. He used to talk over phone with his first wife i.e., Accused No.6. Accused No.1 used to abuse Respondent No.2 in vulgar language in the name of her caste. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 came to know that Accused No.1 has illicit relationship with Accused No.5, who is the wife of his younger brother i.e., Accused No.4. It is further alleged that, in the year 2019, the shifted their family 14 (2020) 4 SCC 761 15 (2012) 5 SCC 424 16 (2008) 9 SCC 284 8 from Hyderabad to Mangalagiri. During that period, Accused Nos.2 to 4 used to abuse Respondent No.2 in the name of her caste. Accused No.6 used to instigate Accused No.1 to give divorce to Respondent No.2. In June, 2022, Accused No.1 by squatting on her neck, beat her indiscriminately, by demanding mutual divorce. On 04.10.2022 also he tried to kill her by pressing her nose with a pillow. Accused No.1 used to threaten to kill her, if she does not give divorce to him. Based on the complaint given by Respondent No.2, Zero FIR in Crime No.137 of 2023 on the file of Adilabad Mahila Police station has been registered against Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 307, 498-A and 506 read with 34 IPC, Section 4 of the D.P.Act and Section 3(2)(va) of SCST Act and subsequently, the same was transferred to Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District. 7. In Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows; <In the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.= 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and Another18, held 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 17 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 18 SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022, dated 26.11.2024 9 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. It appears that in the case on hand despite raising of specific contentions which require deeper consideration, may be taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the complainant that the challan was presented and the matter stood listed for framing charges and hence, it would be open to accused No.5 to raise all plea at the time of framing of the charges, the Court refrained itself from considering the contentions raised against accused No.5.= 9. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others vs. State of Telangana and another19, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 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 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 Lal. 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.= 10. As seen from the material placed on record, based on the petition filed by Accused No.1 against his wife i.e., Accused No.6, a decree of divorce has been passed on 04.06.2010 in O.P.No.1072 of 2009 on the file of Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved thereby, Accused No.6 preferred an appeal in FCA No.157 of 2010 on the file the High Court of Telangana, which 19 2024 INSC 953 10 was allowed vide Order dated 31.10.2022. The present complaint was lodged after setting aside the decree of divorce by the Appellate Court, without there being any specific and credible allegations against the first wife of Accused No.1 and his family members by focussing mainly on the husband’s conduct. 11. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet as well as Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Respondent No.2 would go to show that, it is alleged against Accused Nos.2 to 4 that, in the year 2019, whenever Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 visited their house, they used to insult Respondent No.2 in the name of her caste and used to state that they do not accept the lower caste person even as a servant maid. Accused No.5, who is the wife of Accused No.4 used to maintain illicit intimacy with Accused No.1 and instigate Accused No.1 to give divorce to Respondent No.2. Accused No.6 also used to provoke Accused No.1 to give divorce to Respondent No.2 and to stay with her. Other than claiming that the husband harassed her and that in-laws instigated him to do so, the wife has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. The FIR contained only broad accusations with no specifics regarding time, place, or events that could legally establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of DP Act against Accused Nos.2 to 6. A mere reference to the names of family members of Accused No.1 i.e., Accused Nos.2 to 5 and his first wife i.e., Accused No.6 in the present case, which is arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. 11 12. In the backdrop of the legal positions referred to supra, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, except omnibus allegations, there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Appellants / Accused Nos.2 to 6. However, as seen from the contents of the FIR, charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses, there are specific allegations raised against the Appellant / Accused No.1 in the commission of the alleged offences. Further, it is not the case of Respondent No.2 that Appellants / Accused Nos.2 to 6 resided along with her family under one roof. Except omnibus allegations, there are no allegations, in specific, against the Accused Nos.2 to 6 to attract the offences alleged against them. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the offences alleged against Appellants / Accused Nos.2 to 6 are not the scheduled offences as mentioned in Section 3(2)(va) of SCST Act. As seen from the order of cognizance, no reasons have been assigned by the learned trial Judge for taking cognizance of the offences against the Appellants / Accused Nos.2 to 6. It is not uncommon to say that, to settle the scores with Accused No.1, all the family members are dragged into the present case. No prima facie case is made out against the Appellants / Accused Nos.2 to 6 to proceed further against them in this matter. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against them is sheer abuse of process of law. However, there are specific allegations against Accused No.1 to attract the offences alleged against him and full-fledged trial is required to reveal the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. In such circumstances, the impugned order of cognizance passed against Accused Nos.2 to 6 is not 12 sustainable either under law or on facts and the same is liable to be set aside. However, since Accused No.2, who is the mother of Accused No.1 reported died, the case against her is liable to the abated. 13. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal Nos.758, 757 and 759 of 2024 are allowed and the impugned order of cognizance dated 10.04.2024 passed against Appellants / Accused Nos.3 to 6 in SC (SPL) No.47 of 2024 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Speedy Trial of SCST Court, Guntur, is hereby set aside. Criminal Appeal against Appellant / Accused No.2 is abated. Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2024 is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:26.09.2025 Dinesh 13 HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 742, 758, 757 & 759/2024 Dt.26.09.2025 Dinesh