APHC010100762024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1241 OF 2024 Between: Goru Santosh Kumar @ Santosh, S/o. Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 42 years. Resident of Green Okas Apartments, Flat No. 104, Near Metri Super Market, Kuktpalli, Rangareddy, Telengana ...Petitioner/Accused No.4 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi ...Respondent/Complainant 2. Battula Manasa @ Padala Manasa, W/o Sudheer Kumar, Hindu, aged 30 years. Resident of D.No. 9-134, Near Saibaba Temple, Srinivasa Colony, Srungavarapu kota village, Vizianagaram District ...Respondents/Defacto Complainant 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 against the petitioner/ Accused No 4 in C.C.No. 6 of 2024 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota, Vizinagaram District. ^4. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 including the appearance of the petitioner/Accused No 4 in C.C.No 6 of 2024 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota, Vizinagaram District, which was registered on 08-01-2024 pending disposal of main criminal petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 extend the stay which was granted in CRLP No. 1241 of 2024 on 28-02-2024 including the appearance of the petitioner/Accused No 4 in C.C.No 6 of 2024 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota, Vizinagaram District, which registered on 08-01-2024 pending disposal of main criminal petition. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 was 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 extend the stay which was granted in CRLP No. 1241 of 2024 on 01-05-2024 Including the appearance of the petitioner/Accused No 4 in C.C.No 6 of 2024 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota, Vizinagaram District, which registered on 08-01-2024 pending disposal of main criminal petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri I.Bala Subrahmanyam, Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Y.Malathi, Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. The Court made the following order: was \% APHC010100762024 ,N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1241/2024 iii [3396] ^TSoRU SANTOSH KUMAR @ SANTOSH, S/0 SUIYANARAYANA HINDU, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GR^EN APARTMENTS FLAT NO 104, NEAR METRI SUPER MARKET KUKTPALLI, RANGAREDDY TELENGANA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 1.THE STATE OF PROSECUTOR, AMARAVATHI ^'hINDu''aGE^D 30 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D NO 9-134, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, SRINIVASA COLONY, SRUNGAVARAPU KOTA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): AT PADALA MANASA, W/0 SUDHEER KUMAR Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.1 BALA SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S): 1.YMALATHI 2.PUBL1C PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court Made the Following Order: The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by herein/Accused No.4, seeking quashment of proceedings the petitioner against him in C.C.No.6 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota, for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2 2. Heard Sri Balasubrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant respondent No. 1/State. Public Prosecutor for 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit herein is the son of maternal uncle of A1. that the petitioner The allegation made against the petitioner/A4 in the report is that A1 to A3 harassed the defacto complainant at the instigation of petitioner/A4. Except the said allegation, nothing is attributed against the petitioner to continue proceedings for the offence punishable under Section Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. criminal 498A IPC and 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are clear allegations made against the petitioner in the report submitted by the victim and also in her statement, she categorically stated against the petitioner by making specific overt acts. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others Vs. State of Telangana and another\ the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows; 5. 21. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that respondent No 2 left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No.1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with appellant No.1. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When appellant No.1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by respondent No.2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by respondent No. 2 is not a 2024 INSC 953 m 3 genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with appellant No. 1 and his family members. 25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No. 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No. 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty Inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. ” 0 4 4 6. In Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand & another^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under; 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint insurmountable harassment, complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of Justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task In majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in Jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. ” 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 can lead to agony and pain to the never 7. - (2010)7 see 667 5 4 accusations. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that 8. an omnibus acousation has been made against the petitioner herein and no specific overt act has been attributed against him. Except making a casual reference of the names of the Petitioner in the complaint, nothing is attributed against him in specific. 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 him is a sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case for quashment by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings, in respect of petitioner/A4 in C.C.No.6 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota , are 10. hereby quashed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota, Vizinagaram District 2. One CC to Sri I.Bala Subrahmanyam, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. Y.Malathi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GPC sree HIGH COURT DATED: 15/09/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 1241 OF 2024 I 2 ‘ SEP 2025 . Current tiection m ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION