APHC010416582023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6150/2023 Between: 1. SOMAVARAPATIVIJAYA LAKSHMI@ LAKSHMI DEVI,, W/O VIJAYA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RIO ANDHRA CHRISTIAN, SAVITRINAGAR, MULAPETA, NELLORE TOWN, NOW AT NBTC COLONY, DICOR ROAD CENTRE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. SOMAVARAPATIANITHA,, W/O VIJAY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O 256/A-5, SAVITRI NAGAR, SUJATHA NAGAR COLONY, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. SOMAVARAPATISASI KUMAR,, S/O SUNDHARA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O PRATHIBHA PUBLIC SCHOOL, GAJUWAKA, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. SOMAVARAPATI ANIL KUMAR,, S/O VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.23/812, ARIGALAVANIPETA, PARTHEKHANPETA, NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TENALI II TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP,AMARAVATHI. 2. SMT SOMAVARAPATISIRISHA, W/O KISHORE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O RAJAKAPETA, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 2 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6150 of 2023 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 C.C. No.12 of 2023 on the file of the Ist Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 this petitioners (A2 to A5) in C.C.No.12 of 2023 on the file of the 1st Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Tenali, Guntur District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6150 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6150 OF 2023 ORDER: This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.12 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner No.1 is the mother of accused No.1, petitioner No.2 is his sister-in-law, and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are his brothers. Petitioner No.1 is aged about 65 years and is suffering from age-related ailments. They never resided with accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The allegations levelled against them are bald and omnibus in nature and no specific incident or overt act is attributed to any of them. Respondent No.2 lodged the report only with a view to harass the petitioners. The report does not disclose any specific date or particulars of the alleged acts of abetment and that the statements of the witnesses do not make out the ingredients of the alleged offences against them. 3. Heard Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. Though respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant, no separate appearance on her behalf is recorded in the cause title of the proceedings. 4 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6150 of 2023 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and that they never resided with respondent No.2 and accused No.1. He submits that the petitioners have been implicated only to harass them and that the continuation of the proceedings, in the absence of specific allegations constituting the ingredients of the alleged offences, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submit that the contentions raised by the petitioners involve triable issues, petitioners also harassed respondent No.2 and that she has specifically referred to such harassment in the report as well as in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 6. As seen from the record, respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. Owing to matrimonial disputes, she lodged a report against accused No.1 and the petitioners, which was registered as Crime No.155 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge-sheet for the said offences. A perusal of the allegations shows that the principal allegations are directed against accused No.1, the husband of respondent No.2. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, it is stated, in substance, that accused Nos.2 to 4 abused respondent No.2 for giving birth to a female child and demanded additional dowry. However, no specific date, place or particular incident is mentioned in respect of any individual petitioner, either in the report or in the statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 7. The material on record further shows that petitioner No.1, aged about 65 years, is residing elsewhere. Petitioner No.2 is the married sister-in-law of respondent No.2 and is also residing elsewhere. Petitioner No.3 is stated to be a cousin, and not the own brother, of accused No.1, and is residing at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner No.4 also did not reside with accused 5 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6150 of 2023 No.1 and respondent No.2. Thus, the allegations against the petitioners are collective and omnibus in nature. No particular incident, date, place or specific overt act is attributed to any individual petitioner. There is no specific material indicating the presence or participation of any of the petitioners in the alleged acts of cruelty or harassment. Mere relationship with the husband, without specific allegations constituting the essential ingredients of the offences, cannot by itself furnish a sufficient basis for subjecting a relative to criminal prosecution. If the allegations and the material collected during investigation are accepted in their entirety and still fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the particular accused, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. In the present case, except for the general allegation that the petitioners, being relatives of the husband, harassed respondent No.2 for giving birth to a female child and demanded additional dowry, no specific overt act, date, place or individual role has been attributed to any of them. The fact that the petitioners were residing separately is also material while examining whether the allegations disclose their participation in the alleged acts. Mere relationship with the husband cannot, in the absence of specific and credible allegations constituting the ingredients of the alleged offences, be a ground to subject the petitioners to criminal prosecution. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, inter alia, that where no specific and distinct role is attributed to the relatives of the husband, continuation of the prosecution may amount to abuse of the process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that allegations against relatives residing in different places require careful scrutiny, particularly where their physical separation has a bearing on the allegations made against them. 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 6 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6150 of 2023 9. It is well settled that, while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court ordinarily has to proceed on the basis of the allegations in the complaint or FIR and the material accompanying it, without undertaking an enquiry into the correctness, reliability or genuineness of the allegations. At the same time, where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the alleged offence or do not disclose the essential ingredients thereof, the continuation of the criminal proceedings can be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of law. The power is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly, with due caution, and only where the circumstances warrant interference. The principles stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others 2 , remain the guiding parameters in this regard. “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 156(1), except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6150 of 2023 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act, under which a criminal proceeding is instituted, to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences by them. In particular, there is no specific allegation attributing a distinct act of cruelty or a specific demand for dowry to any individual petitioner, nor is there material showing their presence or participation in the alleged incidents. The fact that the petitioners were residing separately further assumes significance in the circumstances of the present case. The allegations, therefore, fall within the principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction as recognised in Bhajan Lal (supra) and the principles concerning omnibus allegations against relatives laid down in Kahkashan Kausar (supra). Permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners in these circumstances would subject them to the ordeal of a criminal trial without the foundational allegations necessary to constitute the offences against them and would consequently amount to abuse of the process of law. 11. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C. No.12 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are 8 SUN, J Crl.P.No.6150 of 2023 hereby quashed. It is made clear that this order is confined to the petitioners herein. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J Dt: 24.09.2026 Vns