APHC010059992022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1074/2022 Between: Smt. Sammaturu Venkata Harishitha ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings in CC.No.407 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. 2. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2 3. Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State is in attendance. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner herein who is A2 assisted A1 to maintain objectionable intimacy with the wife of the defacto-complainant i.e., Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court striked down the offence under Section 497 as unconstitutional. In that light, the case against A1 for the offence under Section 497 itself is not maintainable. Such being the case, the case against the present petitioner/A2 that she assisted A1 to maintain the relation with the wife of Respondent No.2 even after the marriage is not sustainable under law. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded the same. It is beneficial to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India 1 , dated 27.09.2018, Section 497 I.P.C. is held as unconstitutional. 6. In this regard, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chetan Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others (CRM-M-47495-M-2017 dated 28.02.2019) has held as follows: “As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maj. Genl. A.S.Gauraya and another vs. S.N.Thakur and another, (1986) 2 SCC 709, a declaration of law by the Supreme Court applies to all pending proceedings even with retrospective effect. In view 1 2018 LawSuit(SC) 970 3 thereof, it is contended that the complaint and the subsequent proceedings against the petitioner for offence under Section 497 IPC are liable to be quashed. … In view thereof, this petition is allowed.” 7. In the light of the legal position referred supra, in the background of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the contents of the complaint, continuing criminal case against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law, since no offence is made against her prima facie. 8. In that view, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 20.01.2025 SCS 4 145 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.1074 of 2022 Dt.20.01.2025 SCS