1 SUN, J Crl.P_187_2023 APHC010010342023 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: 187 OF 2023 Between: 1. KILAPARTHI RAJKUMAR, S/O LATE ARIKA JOJINAIDU, HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION. SERVICE IN INDIAN AIR FORCE, R/O FLAT NO.644/1, SANJAY VIHAR ENCLAVE, SUKNA MILITARY STATION, SILIGURI, WEST BENGAL, PIN- 734009. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANGARA POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT NALLA RADHIKA, W/O KILAPARTHI RAJASEKHAR, AGED 36 YEARS, HINDU, R/O MAGGURU VILLAGE, VANGARA MANDAL, SRI KAKU LA M DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B SIVA KESAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 SUN, J Crl.P_187_2023 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 187 OF 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.692 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he never resided with accused No.1 and respondent No.2; that he has been serving in the Indian Air Force and residing in West Bengal; and that he has not committed any offence, much less the offences alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that he had no occasion to reside with respondent No.2 and accused No.1, who is his brother. According to the petitioner, only vague, omnibus and bald allegations have been levelled against him, allegedly with a view to harass him because of his service in the Air Force. It is further contended that there is no material to proceed against him and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 3. Heard Sri B. Siva Kesava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. Perused the averments in the petition, the charge sheet and the other material available on record. 5. The record discloses that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of Accused No.1. Owing to matrimonial disputes, she lodged a report dated 20.06.2022, which was registered as Crime No.54 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences, alleging their involvement in the commission of the said offences. 3 SUN, J Crl.P_187_2023 6. A perusal of the report lodged by respondent No.2 indicates that allegations have been made against the petitioner, who is the elder brother-in- law of respondent No.2. It is alleged that he also harassed her in the context of the conduct of her husband. The report and her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. further state that whenever the petitioner visited the residence of Accused No.1 and respondent No.2, he allegedly harassed respondent No.2 along with the other accused. 7. At the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to consider the allegations in the complaint/FIR and the material collected during investigation to determine whether a prima facie case is made out and whether continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court cannot, however, embark upon a detailed examination of the evidence or conduct a mini-trial. 8. On an overall consideration of the record, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which are to be considered by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced. Such questions cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings by weighing the evidence or testing the credibility of the allegations. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.4 further submitted that the petitioner is serving in the Indian Air Force and is residing in West Bengal, and that his personal appearance before the trial Court at Palakonda causes considerable difficulty. It is therefore requested that his personal appearance be dispensed with, except when his presence is specifically required by the trial Court. 10. Having regard to the petitioner's service in the Indian Air Force and his residence in West Bengal, the request for exemption from routine personal appearance appears reasonable. Accordingly, his personal appearance before the trial Court is dispensed with, subject to his undertaking to be 4 SUN, J Crl.P_187_2023 represented by counsel and to appear whenever his personal presence is specifically directed by the learned Magistrate, including for examination or for any other purpose for which such presence is necessary. 11. It is well settled that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR or criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The Court must proceed on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR and the material accompanying it, taken at face value, and determine whether they disclose the commission of an offence. The Court ordinarily cannot examine the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or adjudicate disputed questions of fact at this stage. The principles governing the exercise of such power were summarised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The relevant categories are reproduced below: “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if 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 or 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, and 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 that no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; 5 SUN, J Crl.P_187_2023 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act to the institution or continuance of the proceedings, or where the Code or the concerned Act provides a specific provision for redress of the aggrieved party; and (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge.” 12. There can be no dispute that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At the same time, the Court is required to examine the allegations and the material collected during investigation to ascertain whether continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that, while considering a petition for quashing, the Court may examine the attending circumstances emerging from the record and is not required to confine itself mechanically to the recitals in the FIR alone. 13. The principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) identify the recognised categories in which the inherent power may be exercised. These include cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence; where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected do not disclose the commission of an offence; or where continuation of the proceedings would otherwise result in an abuse of the process of the Court. The power is not intended to permit a meticulous appreciation of evidence or determination of the truthfulness of disputed factual assertions at the stage of considering a petition for quashing. 14. In the present case, the material placed before this Court does not disclose a complete absence of allegations against the petitioner. On the contrary, the report and the material collected during investigation contain 1 (2023) 15 SCC 488 6 SUN, J Crl.P_187_2023 allegations that the petitioner, along with the other accused, harassed respondent No.2, subjected her to cruelty and demanded additional dowry. The statements of witnesses forming part of the charge sheet also refer to the petitioner's alleged involvement. Whether these allegations are true, whether the petitioner was residing separately, the nature and duration of the parties’ residence, and whether the alleged acts were in fact committed are matters that require appreciation of evidence. 15. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner lay down the settled principle that relatives should not be compelled to face a criminal trial merely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. However, that principle has to be applied having regard to the allegations and material in each case. In the present case, the charge sheet cannot be said to contain no material whatsoever against the petitioner. The allegations have to be tested by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence available to the petitioner. This Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh the respective versions of the parties. 16. The alleged acts relate to matrimonial cruelty and a demand for additional dowry. If accepted at face value, the allegations are capable of attracting the ingredients of the offences for which the charge sheet has been filed. The time taken to lodge the complaint, the alleged prior mediations and the fact that respondent No.2 stayed with her parents for some period are circumstances that may be relevant during trial. By themselves, however, they do not establish that the prosecution is inherently untenable or that the proceedings are liable to be quashed at this stage. 17. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the case does not fall within any of the categories warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. The allegations and the material 7 SUN, J Crl.P_187_2023 collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication by the trial Court. The contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot appropriately be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 18. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused No.4 before the trial Court is dispensed with, subject to the condition that he shall be represented by counsel and shall appear whenever directed by the learned Magistrate, including on any date fixed for his examination or for any other purpose requiring his personal presence. The proceedings in C.C.No.692 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, Srikakulam District, shall proceed in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the disposal of the present petition and shall not prejudice the trial Court while considering the case on its merits. As a sequel thereto, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J Dated 24.09.2026 KS/ knl 8 SUN, J Crl.P_187_2023 50 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 187 OF 2023 Dated:24.09.2026. KS/ knl