APHC010210752022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3203/2022 Between: 1. POTHABATHULA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED 63 YEARS, 12/3. OLD GOVT. STREET, PEDDAPURAM (V) AND (M), KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. POTHABATHULA VARA LAXMI, W/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED 58 YEARS, RIO. OLD GOVT. STREET, PEDDAPURAM (V) AND (M), KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. PONAMANADA KANAKA APARNA @ APARNA, W/O. GOVINDARAJULU, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. OLD GOVT. STREET, PEDDAPURAM (V) AND (M), KAKINADA DISTRICT. 4. PONAMANDA RAJU, S/O. GOVINDARAJU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. CHITNYA NAGAR, OLD GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. POTHABATTULA HEMALATHA, W/O. SRIDHAR AGED 27 YEARS, R/O.N. KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, UPPALAGUPATAM MANDAL, KONASEEMA 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 2 SUN, J Crlp_3203_2022 Criminal Petition, the High Court to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.709 of 2020 on the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram and quash the same in so far as petitioners/A-2 to A-5, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.709 of 2020 on the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram including the appearance of the petitioners/A-2 to A-5, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crlp_3203_2022 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3203/2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 5 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.709 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the Code’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’). 2. The case of the petitioners is that there are no specific allegations against them and that only omnibus allegations have been leveled against them with a view to harass them along with accused No.1, they have not committed any offence. It is further stated that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are not residents of Peddapuram and are residing at Visakhapatnam. Petitioner No.3 is the sister-in-law of Respondent No.2 and, after her marriage, has been residing at Visakhapatnam along with her husband, petitioner No.4. On a perusal of the entire case of the prosecution, except for omnibus allegations, there are no specific dates, incidents or overt acts attributed to the petitioners so as to attract the provisions of Sections 498-A and 109 read with Section 34 of the Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. Heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. Perused the material collected during investigation and the charge sheet. 5. As seen from the record, Respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of Accused No.1. On account of matrimonial disputes, she lodged a report dated 03.05.2019, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 109 read with Section 34 of the Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the 4 SUN, J Crlp_3203_2022 D.P. Act. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet for the said offences. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Accused No.1 initially issued a legal notice dated 06.02.2018, pursuant to which Respondent No.2 joined him and thereafter, again left the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that, after filing of a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights on 16.02.2019, Respondent No.2 lodged the report dated 03.05.2019 and, subsequently, the said petition was decreed by order dated 10.07.2019. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are residents of Visakhapatnam and have never harassed Respondent No.2. It is also submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the aged in-laws of Respondent No.2, neither harassed her nor demanded additional dowry and, therefore, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioners. It is contended that, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations against the in-laws and that, although respondent No.2 had intimated them about the conduct of accused No.1, they supported their son. It is further submitted that the mother-in-law of respondent No.2, i.e., petitioner No.1, demanded additional dowry and that the father-in-law threatened respondent No.2 with dire consequences. 9. Insofar as petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the allegations in the material placed before this Court do not disclose any specific overt act, date or incident constituting the alleged offences. The record also shows that they are residing at Visakhapatnam. Mere relationship with accused No.1, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement in the alleged acts, cannot by itself justify continuation of the criminal proceedings against them. 5 SUN, J Crlp_3203_2022 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that 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, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution and that generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot justify continuation of such proceedings. 11. In the present case, petitioner No.3 is the sister-in-law of Respondent No.2 and petitioner No.4 is the husband of petitioner No.3. The material on record does not attribute any specific act of harassment, demand for dowry or other overt act to petitioner Nos.3 and 4. In the absence of such particularized allegations, continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to permitting a prosecution based merely on their relationship with Accused No.1. 12. It is well settled that, while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, this High Court has to consider the allegations in the complaint/FIR and the material accompanying the same on their face value and at that stage, it is not required to conduct a detailed enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. However, where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence or do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences against a particular accused, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others2, has illustrated the categories of cases in which the inherent power may be exercised. The principles include cases where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence; where the allegations and 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 953 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 SUN, J Crlp_3203_2022 the material collected do not disclose the commission of an offence; where the allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; where there is an express legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceedings; and where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides. The said power, however, is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only where the circumstances warrant such intervention. 13. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the material placed on record contains allegations against petitioner Nos.1 and 2/ accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the in-laws of respondent No.2 and who, according to the prosecution, resided along with accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to undertake an appreciation of the truth or otherwise of those allegations. However, insofar as petitioner Nos.3 and 4/ accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, the material does not disclose specific allegations or overt acts against them and they are stated to be residing at Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the proceedings against petitioner Nos.3 and 4 cannot be permitted to continue merely on the basis of their relationship with Accused No.1. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are aged persons and that their personal presence may be dispensed with except on such dates when their presence is specifically required by the learned Magistrate. Having regard to the circumstances placed before this Court, the said request is reasonable. Therefore, their personal appearance may be dispensed with, subject to the condition that they shall appear before the learned magistrate whenever their presence is specifically required for the progress of the proceedings. 15. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed in part, and the proceedings against petitioner Nos.3 and 4/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.709 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, 7 SUN, J Crlp_3203_2022 Amalapuram, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 109 read with Section 34 of the Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, are hereby quashed. Insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the petition is dismissed, however, their personal appearance before the learned Magistrate is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically required by the learned Magistrate. They shall be represented through counsel on all other dates, as permissible in law. As a sequel thereto, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 23.09.2026 SSA/ knl