IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2757 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 to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 222 of 2022 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur Urban District against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 5 and 6 in the interest of justice Between: 1. Kati Nirmal Babu, S/o. China Chennaiah in FIR wrongly mentioned Kari Nirmal Babu, Aged 64 Years, R/o. MIG-ll-201, IX Phase KPHB Colony, Neary Sudha Hospital Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad 2. Kati Nagamani, W/o. Kati Nirmal Babu Aged 62 Years, R/o. MIG-ll-201, IX Phase KPHB Colony, Neary Sudha Hospital Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati, through the Station House Officer Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur Urban. % 2. Talluri Kranthi Priya, W/o. Kalyana Chakravarthi Age 35 years, R/o. Flat No.203, Back side of ID hospital Hanuman Nagar, Amaravathi Road Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 Fiigh Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of Crime No. 222. of 2022 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur Urban District including arrest of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 5 and 6 in the interest of justice and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No. The Court made the following: APHC010172742022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2757/2022 Between: 1.KATI NIRMAL BABU, S/0. CHINA CHENNAIAH IN FIR WRONGLY MENTIONED KARI NIRMAL BABU, AGED 64 YEARS, R/0. MIG-ll-201, IX PHASE KPHB COLONY, NEARY SUDHA HOSPITAL MEDCHAL- MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, HYDERABAD 2.KATI NAGAMANI, W/0. KATi NIRMAL BABU AGED 62 YEARS, R/0. MIG-ll-201. IX PHASE KPHB COLONY, NEARY SUDHA HOSPITAL MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NALLAPADU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR URBAN. 2.TALLURI KRANTHI PRIYA, W/0. KALYANA CHAKRAVARTHI AGE 35 YEARS, R/0. FLAT NO.203, BACK SIDE OF ID HOSPITAL HANUMAN NAGAR, AMARAVATHI ROAD GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S); 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.222 of 2022 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur Urban registered for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^ and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961^. Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners falsely implicated in the present crime with an ulterior motive to harass Accused No.1, who is the husband of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are vague, but not specific. Learned counsel would submit that, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners and it is not a fit case for quashment. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. 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 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 to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and 2. 3. are 4. secure powers ' for short‘IPC’ - for short ‘DP Act’ circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 6. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 6 alleging that, her marriage with Accused No.1 was performed on 04.08.2016 and it was the second marriage for both of them. At the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs, 30 sovereigns of gold and land to an of Ac.3.65 cents towards dowry. After the marriage, Accused No.1 having addicted to all sorts of vices, used to subject Respondent No.2 to both physical and mental cruelty. With the active support of Accused Nos.2 to 6, Accused No.1 used to demand her to bring the sale proceeds by selling away the land of an extent of Ac.3.65 cents. Accused Nos.1 to 6 colluded together Nos.3 and 4 used to make phone calls to the mother of \ reasons extent and Accused Respondent No.2 and used to abuse her in vulgar language. They also threatened to spoil their lives. At the instigation of Accused Nos.1,2, 5 and 6, Accused Nos.3 and 4 placed the photo and phone number of the mother of All the Accused Respondent No.2 in a call girl website “Hello Mahi.com”. used to abuse Respondent No.2 and her mother in vulgar language by assassinating their character. the contents of the complaint, there are specific allegations made against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6. Further, in view of the stay granted in this matter, investigation has been stalled. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners in the commission 7, As seen from J .) of the alleged offences, this Court is of the view that, investigation has to be done to reveal the veracity of the said allegations. The Court cannot throttle the proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 and the criminal proceedings against them cannot be quashed, at this stage. As such, the matter requires investigation at full length of trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. The case does not fall under any of the guidelines in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6, at this stage and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ^ AIR 1992 SC 604 Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// P. SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur Urban District. 2. One CC to SRI. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of (AP) [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies 4 \ HIGH COURT DATED: 19/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2757 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED.