APHC010041792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 861 of 2025 Between: Yenimireddy Venkateswarlu and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VENKAT CHALASANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 3 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners herein under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in Crime No.194 of 2024 dated 08.07.2024 on the file of Disha UPS, Visakhapatnam registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are husband and wife and are arrayed as A3 and A4 in the said crime. A1 and respondent No.2 went to the USA immediately after their marriage and there was no occasion for the petitioners to meet them. The de facto complainant came to India on 20.03.2024 by leaving A1 in America. Thereafter, on 06.07.2024 the de facto complainant received divorce notice from A1. Then only, as an afterthought, the de facto complainant filed this false case as against the petitioners herein and other accused. Learned counsel would submit that except omnibus 4 allegations, nothing is alleged against the petitioners herein/A3 & A4 in specific. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein is sheer abuse of process of law. 4. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar1, 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 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. 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 5 ***** 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) 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another2, highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the 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 2 2024 INSC 369 6 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 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) 7. In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another3, 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 32024 INSC 896 7 demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present in the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. In the backdrop of the legal position referred supra, the present petitioners are husband and wife and are no way connected with the said crime. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners except omnibus allegations, nothing is attributed against them in specific. The charge sheet is bereft of any details against the petitioners to attract the offence under Sections 498-A or Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1971. In the absence of any such material, continuing criminal proceedings against them is sheer abuse of process of law. 8 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners herein/A3 & A4 in Crime No.194 of 2024 dated 08.07.2024 on the file of Disha UPS, Visakhapatnam for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 30.01.2025 PSA 9 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.861 of 2025 Date : 30.01.2025 PSA