APHC010084302023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE AT AMARAVATI QF ll^ % TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER o TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT m / o/'j 1* h \ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1363 OF 2023 Between: 1. PVRS Srinivasa Raju, S/o.Srinivasa Raju, aged about 55 R/o.D.No.24-10-6, Rudrabhatlavari Street, Ayyakoneru North, Turakala Vizianagaram Town and District. years. 2. Penumatsa Aruna Kumari, W/o.Srinivasa Raju, aged about 48 years, R/o.D.No.24-10-6, Rudrabhatlavari Street, Ayyakoneru North, Turakala, Vizianagaram Town and District. 3. N.Manasa, W/o.Dheeraj, aged about 27 years, R/o.D.No.24-10-6, Rudrabhatlavari Street, Ayyakoneru North, Turakala, Vizianagaram Town and District. 4. Padmavathi, W/o.Kannababu Raju, aged about 68 years, R/o.F-1 Block, Om Shanthi Nilayam, Babametta, Vizianagaram District. ...Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 5 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, By Disha Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...Respondent T -m 2. Penumatsa Indraja, W/o.P.Srinivasa Raju, aged about 26 years, R/o.D.No.C-6, Plot No.7-81/28, Ville Royale Prince Apartments, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. 1^, ...Respondent/Complainant Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC.No.4624 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.4624 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Pampana Padmakar Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri SIvaprasad Reddy Venatl (No representation) The Court made the following: APHC010084302023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY. THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1363/2023 Between: 1.PVRS SRINIVASA RAJU, S/0 SRINIVASA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 24-10-6, RYDRABHATLAVARI STREET. AYYAKONERU NORTH, TURAKALA, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT 2.PENUMATSA ARUNA KUMARI, W/0 SRINIVASA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 24-10-6, RYDRABHATLAVARI STREET, AYYAKONERU NORTH, TURAKALA, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT 3.N. MANASA, W/0 DHEERAJ, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 24-10-6, RYDRABHATLAVARI STREET, AYYAKONERU NORTH, TURAKALA, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT 4.PADMAVATHI, W/0 KANNABABU RAJU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/0 F-1 BLOCK, OM SHANTHI NILAYAM, BABAMETTA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BY DISHA WOMEN POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2.PENUMATSA INDRAJA, W/0 P. SRINIVASA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/0. D.NO. C-6, PLOT NO. 7-81/28, VILLE ROYALE PRINCE APARTMENTS, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PAMPANA PADMAKAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 to 5, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.4624 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 498-A and 509 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Sri Pampana Padmakar, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, except bald and omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case only to settle the scores with Accused No.1. 2. Learned counsel would submit that Petitioner/Accused No.4 never resided under one roof along with the family of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. 3. Per contra, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that there are specific allegations made against the Petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided during trial and the proceedings against the Petitioners at this stage cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. None appeared for Respondent No.2. 5. As seen from the complaint, Petitioner/Accused No.4 used to reside in abroad and she came for the marriage of the Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 and returned to France. Except stating that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 along with other Accused harassed Respondent No.2 demanding additional dowry, there are no allegations against her, in specific, instances of any kind of harassment by the Petitioner/Accused No.4. Petitioner/Accused No.4 is the married sister of Accused No.1 and has been residing away from India along with her family. Further, it is not the case of Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner / Accused No.4 lived along with the family of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 under one roof. All the allegations made against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5. In the absence of any specific overt acts against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against her is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, there are certain allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 and the veracity of the said allegations has to be decided during the course of trial, but not at this stage. In result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.4624 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. However, the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 shall continue. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There are no are 6. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Chief Visakhapatnam District. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, 2. The Station House Officer, Disha Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 3. One CC to Sri Pampana Padmakar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies BSV vna HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 1363 OF 2023 a It SEP 2025 ■'Co ■ rrvntSecti * PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION