APHC010106502021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2202/2021 Between: 1. TADIBOYINA GOPAIAH,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 36 YEARS, HINDU, MASON, R/O. NEAR CHERUVUKATTA, NAMBUR, GUNTUR. 2. TADIBOYINA KOTESWARAMMA,, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 61 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE HOLD, R/O. NEAR CHERUVUKATTA, NAMBUR, GUNTUR. 3. TADIBOYINA VENKATESWARLU,, S/O. LATE GOPAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, HINDU, COOLIE, R/O. NEAR CHERUVUKATTA, NAMBUR, GUNTUR. 4. SAADHAM NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O. POTHURAJU, AGED 44 YEARS, HINDU, NAMBUR VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. SAADHAM PADMAVATHI,, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 40 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, NAMBUR VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DTAG9-ROLOT RS., HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. TADIBOYINA NAGA LAKSHMI, (COMPLAINANT) W/O. GOPAIAH, AGED 30 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. PERIKALAPUDI 2 VILLAGE, DUGGIRALA MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT ...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 Courtpleased to quash the proceedings in D.V.C .No.51/2020 on the file of II Additional judicial First Class Magistrate,Tenali and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 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 may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in D.V.C. No.51 /2020 on the file of the Hon'ble II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali, during the pendency of the Criminal Petition before this Hon'ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K H V SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR 3 The Court made the following: ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in D.V.C. No.51 of 2020, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali. 2. Heard Sri K.H.V. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. None represented respondent No.2, though the vakalat is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that initially D.V.C. No.35 of 2016 was filed against the petitioners, who are the husband and family members of respondent No.2. The said case was not pressed on 17.07.2018. Respondent No.2 also filed a criminal case in C.C. No.100 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, which ended in acquittal on 04.06.2019. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.2 moved M.C. No.14 of 2018, against which petitioner No.1 herein preferred CRP No.21 of 2018. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner No.1, who is the husband, filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P. No.65 of 2020, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, on 14.05.2015. It is clear that they have been residing separately for the last several years. It is specifically mentioned in the counter filed in the divorce petition that respondent No.2 has been residing separately since 14.05.2015. The present DVC complaint is filed with the same set of allegations as in the earlier D.V.C. No.35 of 2016. Learned counsel would submit that it is a clear 4 case of abuse of process of the Court. It is alleged in the present case that on 20.11.2019, she went to the house of her in-laws with the help of her parents, but the petitioners herein abused her, beat her, and her father. Learned counsel would further submit that as seen from the record, the DVC report was submitted to the concerned authority on 07.08.2019, and hence, the question of the alleged incident on 20.11.2019 does not arise. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, and as rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 first filed D.V.C. No.35 of 2016 against her husband and his family, but she later withdrew it on 17.07.2018. She also filed a criminal case in C.C. No.100 of 2016 under Section 498-A IPC, but the Court acquitted the accused on 04.06.2019. In the meantime, she filed a maintenance case in M.C. No.14 of 2018, and the husband filed a revision in CRP No.21 of 2018 against it. The husband had already filed for divorce in H.M.O.P. No.65 of 2020, stating that they had been living separately since 14.05.2015, and the same is admitted by respondent No.2. Despite this, she filed a new domestic violence case in D.V.C. No.51 of 2020 with the same old allegations. She also claimed there was an incident on 20.11.2019 when she visited her in-laws’ house, but the domestic violence report had already been submitted earlier on 07.08.2019, which raises serious doubts about the truth of her claims. In that view, this Court is inclined to allow this Criminal Petition. 5 6. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in D.V.C. No.51 of 2020, on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 24-07-2025 MH 6 252 HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2202 of 2021 Dt.24.07.2025 MH