APHC010095462020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SMS THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1265 OF 2020 Between: 1. Chintala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Chintala Rama Rao, Age. 40 years, Employee, R/o. H.No. 117-10, Laxmi Nagar, Bollaram, Medak- 502325. 2. Smt. Chintala Ramya, W/o.Chintala Srinivasa Rao, Age. 40 years. Employee, R/o. H.No.117-10, Laxmi Nagar, Bollaram, Medak- 502325. 3. Chintala Rama Rao, S/o. Venkat Rayudu, Age. 59 years, Konda Manjuluru Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. Smt Chintala Vanajakshi, W/o.Chintala Rama Rao, Age. 55 years, Konda Manjuluru Village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2-5 AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Korisapadu Police Station, Prakasam District. 3. Nathani Swathi, Age. 31 years, D/o. Hanumantha Rao, Pamidipadu Village, Korsapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition 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 entire proceedings in C.C No. 565 of 2019 Date: 07/11/2019 on the file of the court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, Prakasam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 565 of 2019, dated on the file of on the file of the court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adanki. including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main quash Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V. NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI SHAIK MEERAVALI The Court made the following ORDER : ■ / ' / // APHC010095462020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] BSS THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1265/2020 Between: l.CHINTALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.CHINTALA RAMA RAO, AGE,40 YRS. EMPLOYEE, RIO.H.No. 117-10, LAXMI NAGAR, BOLLARAM, MEDAK- 502325. ■ ■■ PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2.SMT CHINTALA RAMYA, W/O.CHINTALA SRINIVASA RAO, AGE,40YRS. EMPLOYEE, RIO.H.NO. 117-10, LAXMI NAGAR, BOLLARAM, 502325. MEDAK- 3.CHINTALA RAMA RAO, 5/0. VENKAT RAYUDU, AGE.59, MANJULURU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4.SMT CHINTALA VANAJAKSHI, W/O.CHINTALA RAMA RAO, AGE.55, KONDA MANJULURU VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORISAPADU PS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6.NATHANI SWATHI, AGE.3LYRS, D/0. HANUMANTHA RAO, PAMIDIPADU VILLAGE, KORSAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. KONDA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the entire proceedingsin C.O No. 565 of 2019 on the file of the court of learned Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, Prakasam District ■ ■■ Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: l.NAGESWARA RAO V Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): l.SHAIK MEERAVALI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 % The Court made the following: ORDER This instant Criminal Petition i following relief: IS filed by the Petitioners seeking the ■■■ P'^^sed to quash the entire 2019 on the file of the court of learned Class, Addanki, Prakasam District " 2. Heard learned counsel for the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor the material on record. proceedings in C.C.No.565 of Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Petitioner, Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Perused 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners respondent No.3 with A.l took place in the complaint, by the time of would submit that the marriage of on 25.08.2013. As per the averments made marriage, respondent No.3 was working in Bangalore, whereas, A.l Respondent No.3 got transferred to Hyderabad stayed jointly in the shared house of A.2 sister of respondent No.3. During that No.3 to bring additional dowry and was working as Software Engineer in Hyderabad, to join with A.l and initially, they and A.3 who are brother-in-law and co period, they used to ill treat respondent sell away Ac.2.00 ,of land to meet the (USA). Learned counsel would expenses of A.l to go to United States of America submit that all the Accused insisted A.l to discard respondent No.3 and contract submit that the allegations attributed to harass her to fulfil counsel would further submit that A.l second marriage. Learned counsel would against the Petitioners their illegal demand of dowry. Learned is that at their instance, A.l used 3 and respondent No.3 never resided along with the parents of A.l and they were roped unnecessarily with this criminal case. Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.3 and A.l stayed along with A.2 and A.3 from 2013 to 2015 only and later they put up a separate family. Respondent No.3 delivered a baby girl on 01.09.2018 and thereafter, she did not join A.l. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners have nothing to do with the family life of A.l and respondent No.3. Learned counsel would submit that A.4 and A.5 are parents of A.l and permanent residents of Konda Manjuluru village of J.Panguluru Mandal and they never stayed along with A.l and respondent No.3. Learned counsel would submit that A.2 and A.3 settled in Hyderabad about 11 years back prior to the marriage of A.l and respondent No.3. A.2 and A.3 had no occasion to harass respondent No.3 for additional dowry. Learned counsel would submit that only to harass the husband and his family members, this false case has been lodged against the Petitioners and finally, prays to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there are specific allegations made against the Petitioners and the police after due investigation filed charge sheet. Further, there are no grounds for quashment of the case and sought for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 5. 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 4 orders as may be necessary; (i) to o/i OV ot prevent abuse ^nds Ofjustice. A as a trial court. - ^^ect to any order of the process of any Court under the Code or. or, otherwise (iii) to court While sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction i secure fs not functioning court of appeal to do real and substantiai i or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers jusdce, depending on the facts and circumstances abuse of sound principles of criminal toe case. These Of powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of process of law jurisprudence. or glaring injustice. Which are against 6- Section 498-A of I.P.C. is a powerful weapon engrafted by the the rescue of (aw, to or harassment by husband a married woman, or by the relative of husband. subjected to cruelty The Hon'ble Apex Court iin U. Suvetha appearing in Section 498A interpreted the term V. Stated of I.P.C, in the relative as following terms: Expianatbn,^'^no^'^othr^ ^^rms of the another woman may be attributed thereto ^ provision m-h crueity within must 1 , daughter, brother 5 ) . sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word "relative" would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. 13. Furthermore, Section 498-A is a penal one. It, thus, deserves strict construction. Ordinarily, save and except where a contextual meaning is required to be given to a statute, a penal provision is required to be construed strictly. This Court in .T Ashok Pai v. CTT [(2007) 7 SCC 162: (2007) 8 Scale 354] held as under: (SCC p. 168, para 17) "17.. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the more stringent is the law, more strict construction thereof would be necessary. Even when the burden is required to be discharged by an assessee, it would not be as heavy as on the prosecution. (See P.N. Krishna Lai v. Govt, of Keraia [1995 Supp (2) SCC 187:1995SCC (Cri) 466].)" (Emphasis supplied) 7. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^, wherein, at paras 102 and 103, it was held as follows; "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process ofany court or otherwise to secure the ends ofpstice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section ^ AIR 1992 sc 604 6 - 156(1) of the Code purview nfc:^ .. ^>(cept under an order of a ofSection 155(2) ofthe Code. Megistrete within the '^°'”Ploint ^°~"‘>^«yoh^enceend„eheoutcTeefg7ZZet^in. the (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR rin ^f^ence but constitute oniv a nnn ^ is permitted by a poiice omcer fZu'T'^ constitute a coanizahia * ihidtigSon oontempiatedunderSection 155(2) ofthe fodT'' ^ as (5) Where the aiiegations made in the Ftp mherentiy mprobabie on thef -™f'' °i'PP'sint - r7( 7'"' " ^nciusion that iTr’""'■" Proceeding against the accused. ' ^ ® sufficient ground for are SO absurd and can ‘’^,S:BSS?lF^^}zizrrsf- IS ^^s7d/ZtheTthe f "’f'^^ctiy attended with maia dd mowe for wreaU^Z^ZeB ZfBT "uit77!r ii"” doe to private h7dpersonaigru(e7‘t'^'' ^ oiew to 103, We also give a a criminal note of caution to the »iS''““Scsss.%frr'“»“ssss or on (emphasis supplied) 8- In the complaint would the Petitioners, respondent No.3 to bring case on hand, a fair look at the 90 to show that, except a casual averments made in the as rightly argued by the learned counsel for reference that the more money from her Petitioners harassed parental home and to sell I away 7 the land to meet the them in specific. expenses of A,1 to go to USA, nothing is attributed against 9. In Preeti Gupta and another^, the Hon'ble Apex Court held another v. State of Jharkhand and as under: 2 Unfortunately, at the time of ifling of the complaint the Implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that uch complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his dose relations truth it is difficult to ascertain the real with these ’Smoi'^oJrn ^^d cautious in dealing consideration while dealingwithZ^imoLua!^^^^^^ '!f^tiTons% relations who had been living nf different (emphasis supplied) 10. Considering the submissions and record, as can be seen from the statement of the a fair look at the material placed on Complainant, immediately after marriage, respondent No,3 joined A. 1 and they stayed at Hyderabad in the house of A.2 and A.3 for two years and thereafter, they put up separate famiiy. It IS alleged that at the instance of A.2 and A.3, A.l started harassing " (2010) 7 see 667 8 ■ respondent No.3 for additional dowry. Except are attributed against A.2 and A.3. omnibus, no specific allegations Admittedly, the couple put up separate family at Hyderabad and thereafter, dispute No.3 left the matrimonial house arose between the couple and respondent and joined in a Hostel. Even according to the contents of the complaint, her parents and elders settled the disputes between joined A.l. Subsequently, she the wife and husband and she ioi girl on 01.09.2018. gave birth to baby respondent No.3, after she According to version of father of gave birth to a baby girl, all the accused started interference of her parents to settle the I harassing her. Despite issue. Accused did not turn up. 11. Admittedly, A.4 and A.5 Manjulu village, J.Pangulur Mandal, the time of are parents of A.l and they settled at Prakasam District ori Konda prior to their marriage. At marriage, A.l was working as a Software Engineer whereas, respondent No.3 in Hyderabad, was working at Bangalore as a Software Engineer.the present complaint was lodged house of A.2 and A.3 from 2013 on 15.09.2019. The couple stayed in the sdhared to 2015. The disputes were settled between the a baby girl. It appears, after the allegations A.4 and A.5 never couple, they stated birth of baby girl, there is no reunion of the couple. Except omnibus against A.2 to A.5, nothing in specific is attributed. Evidently, Stayed in the same roof along with A. separately, gave birth to 1 and respondent No,3. 12. As per the first guideline of Bhajanlat's case (supra). even if the allegations made in the present complaint accepted in their entirety, they do are taken at their face value not prima facie constitute and any offence or 9 No.2 for the offences under against the Petitioner/Accused make out a case IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. 13. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court has been developed for roping in Section 498-A and this Court categorically in all the relatives of the ize the immediate family made against the Petitioner are . Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that held that a tendency harassment made in order to pressurize husband in dowry husband. All the allegations that were of the either vague or general in nature continuation nothing but an abuse of process is of the view to exercise - the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is of the impugned proceedings against of the Court. In such circumstances, this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to ise the inherent powers Court and to secure the ends of justice. prevent abuse of the process of the in the charge sheet or in the complaint, it is in the commission of the . Act. Allegations made in the complaint or make out a case under Section 498-A IPC and 14. Further, nowhere, either in the involvement of the Petitioners in mentioned about under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P offence ima facie constitute any offence or charge sheet do not pnma Petitioners/A.2 to A.5 for the offences against the Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. ion and the law laid down by the referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude counsel for the Petitioners/A.2 to A.5 the Petitioners with the of the foregoing discussion 15. In view Court in the judgments contentions raised by the learned I grounds to the connect alleged against then, and thereby, continuation of crinrinai proceedings Hon'ble Apex that the indicate that there are no offences 10 . % against them is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under 0 Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in the above case. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Proceedings against the Petitioners/A.2 to A.5 in C.C.No.565 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, Prakasam District. 2. The Station House Officer, Korisapadu Police Station, Prakasam District. 3. One CC to SRI. NAGESWARA RAO V Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. SHAIK MEERAVALI Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies Chp TAC ■'t% HIGH COURT DATED:17/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 1265 OF 2020 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION