Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 24-09-2026 Date of uploading : 24-09-2026 APHC010434522022 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: 6557/2022 Between: V.PRAMEELA DEVI, W/O. T. KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. ASI IN RAF H.NO. 16/7, JBSB COLONY, SINGAYAPALLI, POST HAKIMPETA MANDAL, SHAMERPET, SECUNDERABAD. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. NAGIRIBHUTHISWARUDU, S/O. LATE N. RAJENDRA PRASAD. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, YADAV STREET, KALASAPADU TOWN, KALASAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA 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 Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in in C.C. No. 592 of 2022 on the file of the Honourable Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District and pass such 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 2 SUN, J Crlp_6557_2022 High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C. No. 592 of 2022 on the file of the Honourable Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District including appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PENJURI VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crlp_6557_2022 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION No:6557 OF 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.592 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”). 2. The case of the petitioner is that she had no knowledge of the allegations leveled against her and was not acquainted with the de facto complainant or the other witnesses. She denied promising them to provide to Government jobs. According to her, the other accused used her name and bank account details, and she has been implicated because of the acts of her husband. She further submits that she lost her employment and that the criminal proceedings are causing her hardship. She also points out that non- bailable warrants are pending against the other accused and that the trial has not progressed. 3. Heard Sri Penjuri Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the material available on record. 4. As seen from the record, on the basis of the report lodged by respondent No.2, Crime No.14 of 2022 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The allegation is that the petitioner/Accused No.1 and the other accused induced unemployed persons to pay money on the promise of providing them with jobs. Believing their representations, several persons deposited amounts into the petitioner’s bank account, from which the amounts were allegedly transferred to the account of 4 SUN, J Crlp_6557_2022 K. Purushotham/Accused No.3. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the other accused misappropriated the amounts and cheated respondent No.2 and other victims. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no role in the alleged offences and that her husband had used her bank account details and employment credentials to deceive the victims. It is contended that, immediately after the amounts were credited to her account, she transferred them to Accused No.3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has suffered adverse consequences, including loss of employment, on account of the allegations against her husband and that attending the proceedings at Badvel has caused her considerable hardship. 6. It is further contended that there are no specific allegations or supporting material establishing the petitioner’s involvement and that she has been arrayed as an accused merely because the amounts passed through her bank account. 7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner, her husband and Accused No.3 allegedly induced several unemployed persons to deposit money into the petitioner’s bank account. It is submitted that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Hyderabad, while her husband was working as a Constable in the CRPF, and that the victims were induced by their representations. According to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the material collected during investigation discloses the petitioner’s role, which must be assessed at trial and cannot be adjudicated in detail in this petition. 8. The record indicates that, on the basis of the report of respondent No.2 and the complaints of other victims, Crime No.14 of 2022 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet reiterating the allegations that the petitioner, her husband and the other accused induced 5 SUN, J Crlp_6557_2022 unemployed persons to transfer amounts to the petitioner’s and other accused persons’ accounts and thereby cheated them. 9. The charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, her husband/Accused No.2 and Accused No.3. Accused No.3 was shown as absconding at the time of filing the charge sheet. It is stated that Accused No.2 subsequently failed to appear before the trial Court and that a non-bailable warrant issued against him remains pending. 10. It is well settled that, while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court must consider the allegations in the complaint/FIR and the material accompanying them on their face value. At this stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a detailed inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. However, where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence or disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustrated the categories of cases in which such inherent power may be exercised, including cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, the material does not disclose the commission of an offence, the allegations are inherently improbable, an express legal bar exists, or the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides. The power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. 11. In the present case, the allegations in the charge sheet attribute a role to the petitioner in the alleged transactions. In particular, it is alleged that the victims deposited amounts into her bank account and that the amounts were thereafter transferred to Accused No.3. These allegations, considered at this preliminary stage, cannot be said to disclose no involvement on the part of the petitioner. Whether she acted knowingly, shared the intention of the other 1 1992 Supplement 1 SCC 335 6 SUN, J Crlp_6557_2022 accused, or was merely a conduit as claimed by her, involves questions of fact which require appreciation of the evidence during trial. This Court cannot undertake such an exercise in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the proceedings have not made progress on account of the non-appearance of Accused Nos.2 and 3 and the pending non-bailable warrants. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, with an appropriate application for splitting up the case, in accordance with Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Section 317(2) Cr.P.C., subject to learned magistrate’s consideration. 13. Having regard to the allegations and the material collected during investigation, this Court is not persuaded to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. However, considering the submissions made on her behalf and subject to the petitioner being represented by counsel, her personal appearance before the trial Court can be dispensed with, except on such dates when her presence is specifically required by the learned magistrate. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel except on such dates when her presence is specifically directed by the learned magistrate. On all other dates, the petitioner shall be represented by her counsel, as permissible in law. As a sequel thereto, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 24.09.2026 knl