IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATJW^^ TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE '7 ■0] o i!.j oi PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9818 OF 2022 Between: 1. Nadinti Sundaramma, W/o. Late Jayaramudu, aged 60 years Occ: House wife, R/o. D.No.4-42 A, DiguvagandIa Street, Narayanavanam Village and Mandal, Tirupati District. 2. Nadinti Sujatha @ Geripudi Sujatha, W/o Lakshminarayna, aged 45 years, Occ: Beautician, R/o. Flat No.204, Samagra Gateway Apartment, Tirupathi Urban, Tirupathi District. 3. Nadinti Kusuma Latha, W/o. T Rajendra, aged 43 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. 3-15, K L Thota, Chiguruwada South, Khandriga, Chiguravada, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4. Nadinti Radhika W/o Bala Subramanyam, Aged 37 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. 1-4-494/61, Salivahana Nagar, Tirupathi urban. Tirupati District. 5. Nadinti Vineetha Rani @ Naveena, W/o Vinod Kumar, aged 35 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. 42-A, DiguvagandIa Street, Narayanavanam Village & Mandal, Tirupati District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 2 to 6 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO, DISHA Women Police Station, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati. 2. Nadinti Sravani W/o Jaya Srinivas, Age 25 years, Occ. House wife, R/o Kinthali Vallapuram, V Madugula Mandal, Anakapalli District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the" circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, Jhe High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 239 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate Madugula, Anakapalli District. V I I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings CC No.239 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, V Madugula, Anakapalli District pending disposal of Criminal Petition. praying that in the This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Narahari Babu, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri A.R.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: A APHC010669572022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY JHE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9818/2022 [3396] Between: 1.NADINTI SUNDARAMMA, W/0 LATE JAYARAMUDU, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/0 D.NO.4-42 A, DIGUVAGANDLA STREET, NARAYANAVANAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT 2.NADINTI SUJATHA GERIPUDI SUJATHA, W/0 LAKSHMINARAYNA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. BEAUTICIAN, R/0 FLAT NO.204, SAMAGRA GATEWAY APARTMENT, TIRUPATHI URBAN, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT 3.NADINTI KUSUMA LATHA, W/0 T RAJENDRA, AGED 43 YEARS OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/0 3-15, K L THOTA, CHIGURUWADA SOUTH, KHANDRIGA, CHIGURAVADA, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4.NADiNTI RADHIKA, W/0 BALA SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/01-4-494/61, SALIVAHANA NAGAR,’ TIRUPATHI URBAN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 5.NADINTI VINEETHA RANI @ NAVEENA, W/0 VINOD KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/0 42-A, DIGUVAGANDLA STREET, NARAYANAVANAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL. TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SHO, DISHA WOMEN POLICE STATION, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. 2.NADINTI SRAVANI W/0 JAYA SRINIVAS, AGE 25YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/0 KINTHALI VALLAPURAM, V MADUGULA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT .,.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.ALAPATI ROHINI SRINIVAS MURTHY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused of Criminal Nos.2 to 6, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.239 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, V.Madugula, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961^. Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the A.Rohini Srinivas Murthy, learned counsel for Respondent Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. 1 1860 2. Petitioners, Sri No.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are the mother and married sisters of Accused husband of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further No.1, who is the submit that, except omnibus and vague allegations, nothing is attributed against the Petitioners in specific to attract the alleged offences. Learned counsel would submit that, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. for short iPC’ ^ for short‘DP Act’ 3 • 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are allegations made against the Petitioners and Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that it is not a fit case for quashment and Court may pass appropriate orders. 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 6. 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. 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 7. 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 ^ 2024 INSC 369 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. ” (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Apex Court in Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and Another"*, held as follows: 8. “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. 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. ’’ In Dara Lakshml Narayana & Others vs. State of Telangana and another®, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows; 9. “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 ^ SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022, dated 26.11.2024 ^ 2024 INSC 953 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. ” 10. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the backdrop of the legal positions referred to supra, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petiiioners, except omnibus allegations, there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6. That apart, no incident has been referred either in the complaint or the charge sheet to attract the alleged offences against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6. However, as seen from the complaint, there are specific allegations raised against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in the commission of the alleged offences. Further, Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 are the married sisters 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. In the absence of verifiable material to proceed further against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 in this matter, continuation of criminal proceedings against them is sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed by exercising the 6 jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the petition against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 deserves dismissal. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 in C.C.No.239 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, V.Madugula, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petition against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR yT" //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Anakapalli District. One CC to Sri P. Narahari Babu, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri A.R.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CC’s to The Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Three CD Copies V Madugula, 2. 3. 4. 5. GPC Cnr . # HIGH COURT GPC DATED: 25/02/2025 o ^ AUG 2n?5 ^ Curreni deciion , ORDER CRLP.No.9818 of 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THIS CRLP