0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY//^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE a. -3. PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10529 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the, the High Court pleased to quash CC No. 447/2022 pending on the file of AddI Junior CivilJudge PILER Between: 1. Ramana Pavana Kumari, W/o Ramana Chandra Obul Reddy, Age . 60 Yrs, R/o Ramanapalli village, Chennuru Mandal, Kadapa Dist. Ramana Bhavana, W/o I.Yugandhar Reddy, Age . 38 Yrs, R/o Ramanapalli village, Chennuru Mandal, Kadapa Dist. now residing at Saleem Nagar, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. 2. 'ey ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi, Velagapudi. / Chichill Soundarya, W/o R. Ranaprathap Reddy, Age. 27 Yrs, Occ. Housewife,R/o Vaddevandlapalli, H/o Motumallela,Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. 1. 2. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS r i: l4jjajiOF_2022 ' Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in thd Merfioranclum of Grounds of the High Court may be pleased tb rs^ all further 447/2022 pending on the file of Hon'ble AddI Junior including appearance of the Petitioners and be pleased to This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and VENKATA MAYUR .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. praying that in the Criminal Petition, proceedings in CC No. Civil Judge, Piler, pass upon hearing the arguments of Sri V Prosecutor The Court made the following i. ■ APHC010717732022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA r.RIMINAL PETITION NO: 10529/2022 [3396] ^ 1 RAMANA PAVANA KUMARI, W/0 RAMANA CHANDRA O^UL REDDY, AGE 60 YRS, R/0 RAMANAPALLI VILLAGE, CHENNURU MANDAL, KADAPA DIST. or-r^nv yr^ r/O 9 RAMANA BHAVANA W/0 I.YUGANDHAR REDDY, AGE 38 YRS, R/O ^^mXpALLI VILLAGE, CHENNURU MANDAL, KADAPA DIST. NOW RESIDING AT SALEEM NAGAR, MOOSARAMBAGH, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI,VELAGAPUpi. 9 CHICHILL SOu'nDARYA W/0 R. RANAPRATHAP REDDY, AoE. 27 'yRS OC? HOUSEWIEE,R/0 VADDEVANDLAPALLI H/0 M0TUMALLEIVL,R0MPICHERLAMA^^^^^^^^^ Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.VVENKATAMAYUR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S): 1.ARUN KUMAR R 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: 482 of the Code of Criminal The instant petition under Section been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 Procedure, 1973, has seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.447 of 2022 on the of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Piler, for the offences file of the Court punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and Penal Code, 1860^ and Sections 3 and 4 2. Heard Sri Venkata Mayur, learned R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would herein are the mother and married sister of Accused of Respondent No.2. 506 read with 34 of the Indian of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19611 counsel for the Petitioners, Sri No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka No. 1/State. submit that the Petitioners No.1, who is the husband Learned counsel would further submit that, except omnibus and vague allegations, nothing is attributed against the Petitioners in specific to attract the alleged offences, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners i Learned counsel would submit that. IS mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 allegations made against the Petitioners orders. would submit that there and Court may pass appropriate are 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would for quashment and Court may pass appropriate orders. submit that it is not a fit case 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code that inherent powers of the High Court make orders as may be necessary; (i) to Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the envisages are not limited or affected so as to give effect to any order under the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court iwhile sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not for short ‘IPC’ ^ for short‘DP Act’ It must exercise its court of appeal or a court of revision. functioning as a powers to do circumstances of the case. These powers of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against the facts and real and substantial justice, depending on must be invoked for compelling reasons sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another’, highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the and legislating, especially in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, The relevant observations made in the context highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is of the present case as follows; "25 If a person is made to face a criminal tnat on some genera and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any speciifc instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but ebuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to bnbject th allegations ieveiied in the complaint to a thorough ecrbbny to find out prima facie, whether there is any gram of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a cnminal charge more particularly^ when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. (emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and 8. Another'^, held as follows; "The decisions referred above on , ^ 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 pressunse the the subject of exercise of ^ 2024 INSC 369 SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022, dated 26.11.2024 'cn^LfV''’' <^<^'r<Bnds. The Courts contentiorrs rsrsZZnZZsedZZ" may on behalf of the. 9- In Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others another^ the Hon'ble Apex Court held vs. State of Telangana and asfQjlpws; of Jharkhand =hh:”=1“s»= Wo ZoZoZmeTh °' ''’® impugrred FIR B=H==~—» 10. Taking into consideration of the facts case, in the backdrop of the legal positions the learned counsel for the Petitioners no specific overt acts attributed and circumstances of the present referred to supra, as rightly put by except omnibus allegations, there are against the Petitioners. That apart, no 2024 (NSC 953 5 incident has been referred either in the complaint or the charge sheet to / In the absence of attract the alleged offences against the Petitioners. verifiable material to proceed further against the Petitioners in this matter, continuation of criminal proceedings against them is sheer abuse of process of law. Further, Petitioner/Accused No.4 is the married sister of Accused No.1 and 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. Viewed from any angle, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.447 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Piler, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTTiAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Junior Civil Judge Piler. 2. One CC to SRI V VENKATA MAYUR Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies NSR (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED: 06/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.10529 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED.