APHC010098862023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1576/2023 Between: 1. BADUGANTI LAKSHMI, W/O VENKATARAMANA, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O.ANKEM VARI VEEDHI, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 2. VANAPALLI AMMAJI, W/O VANAPALLI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA (LATE) R/O 18-5-1/23/1, TALUPULAMMA COLONY, PEDDAPURAM , EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. BADUGANTI RAVICHANDRA NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O VENKATARAMANA, R/O D.NO.8-3-231/B/423, 3RD FLOOR, YOUSUFGUDA , HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. SMT BADUGANTI DURGA BHAVANI, W/O PRASAD, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O NEAR CANARA BANK, RAMACHANDRAPURAM TOWN, KONASEEMA DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O., P.S. RAMACHANDRAPURAM,KONASEEMA REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATI. ...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 dated 20- 11-2022 in C.C. No. 661 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Addl. Judicial First- Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram and pass 2 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1576 of 2023 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 to dispense with the certified copy of the proceedings dated 20-11-2022 in C.C. No. 661 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Addl. Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram and pass IA NO: 2 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 to stay all further Proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No/2,3 and 4 dated 30-11-2022 in C.C. No. 661 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, pending disposal of the above criminal petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioners to engage Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, Advocate to represent the petitioners in the place of Smt. Lakshmi Geet and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. DWARAMPUDI SAVITHRI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1576 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1576 OF 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.661 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The case of the petitioners is that the allegations in the charge-sheet do not disclose the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. It is contended that the petitioners have no concern with the matrimonial affairs of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.1 and that the complaint contains false and exaggerated allegations. According to the petitioners, Respondent No.1 had been residing at different places; Petitioner No.2 is a resident of Peddapuram, East Godavari District, and Petitioner No.3 is a resident of Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The petitioners further allege that Respondent No.1 had developed an intimate relationship with one Nageswara Rao and that, when Accused No.1 questioned her about the same, she admitted the relationship and gave an undertaking not to repeat it. It is their case that Respondent No.1 thereafter picked up a quarrel with Accused No.1 and started living separately, and lodged the report only to cover up her own conduct. 3. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No.2. Though notice was served on Respondent No.1, she remained absent. Her arguments are, therefore, taken as not advanced. 4 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1576 of 2023 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not concerned with the family affairs of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.1 and that they were residing separately. It is contended that no specific overt acts constituting the alleged offence are attributed to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that Respondent No.1 had an extra-marital relationship with a person related to the petitioners and that, when she was questioned by Accused No.1 and others, she gave an undertaking before elders not to continue such relationship. It is argued that the complaint was subsequently lodged to harass the petitioners. 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess the truthfulness of the allegations. It is contended that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners and that the proceedings do not warrant interference at this stage. 6. The record shows that, based on the report lodged by Respondent No.1, Crime No.237 of 2022 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and, upon completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The petitioners are the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and younger brother-in-law of Respondent No.1, respectively. Petitioner No.2 is the married sister of Accused No.1 and is stated to be residing at Peddapuram, while Petitioner No.3 is the younger brother of Accused No.1 and is stated to be residing at Yousufguda, Hyderabad. 7. At the outset, it is to be observed that the present proceedings are not an occasion to conduct a mini-trial or to adjudicate upon the rival allegations concerning the conduct of Respondent No.1. The material to be considered at this stage is the complaint, the statements recorded during investigation and the other material collected by the prosecution, taken at face value, to determine whether they disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence against the petitioners. 5 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1576 of 2023 8. The principal allegation in the complaint, as noticed from the record, concerns the matrimonial dispute between Respondent No.1 and Accused No.1. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the allegation is that on 27.10.2022, when Respondent No.1 asked her husband to come home, the petitioners abused and beat her and threatened her to bring money. Beyond this allegation, the material placed before this Court does not disclose specific particulars as to the individual role of each petitioner or the manner in which the alleged acts constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The record further indicates that none of the other witnesses examined during investigation has spoken to any specific act of cruelty allegedly committed by the petitioners; the allegations against them are substantially based on the statement of Respondent No.1. 9. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that courts have to be extremely careful and cautious while dealing with complaints arising out of matrimonial disputes and must take pragmatic realities into consideration. It was further observed that allegations of harassment against the husband’s close relatives who are living in different cities and who rarely visit the matrimonial home require careful scrutiny and circumspection. Further, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that merely mentioning the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, would not by itself justify their prosecution. General and sweeping accusations, unsupported by concrete particulars or specific allegations, cannot form the sole basis for continuing criminal proceedings against such family members. 1 (2010) 7 SCC 667 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 953 6 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1576 of 2023 10. It is well settled that, while exercising 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 required to undertake a detailed inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. However, where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the alleged offence or do not disclose its essential ingredients against a particular accused, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustrated the categories of cases in which the inherent power may be exercised, including where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence; where the allegations and 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 conclude that there is sufficient ground to proceed; where an express legal bar exists; and where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides. The power is, however, to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only where the circumstances warrant such intervention. 12. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the material collected by the prosecution primarily relates to the matrimonial dispute between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.1. The allegations against the petitioners are general in nature and do not contain sufficient particulars of their individual involvement or disclose, even if taken at face value, the necessary ingredients of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. Their relationship with Accused No.1, by itself, cannot be a ground to subject them to criminal prosecution. In these circumstances, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1576 of 2023 the process of law. This finding is confined to the petitioners and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the allegations against Accused No.1. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.661 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J Dt: 28.09.2026 Vns