APHC010050312026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 111/2026 Between: 1. AKULA ANUSHA, D/O ANJAIAH, W/O M. NAGENDRA KUMAR,AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,R/O PUSHDAM VILLAGE, GHANTASALA MANDALKRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. CHEERLALA RAMESH BABU, S/O VEERANJANEYULU,AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,R/O PEDAKALEPALLI VILLAGE, MOPIDEVI MANDALKRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHITHROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MAHILA POLICE STATION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. SETTI ANUSHA, D/O SATTIRAJU,AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,D.NO. 15/207-38-1 A,MACHAVARAM, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3. AKULAGANESH BABU ALIAS GANESH, S/O ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 20/516-5-A, NEAR MISHPACHRUCHCIRCARTHOTA, MACHILIPATNAM,KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. AKULA SUJANA, W/O ANJAIAH,W/O ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 20/516-5-A, NEAR MISHPACHRUCHCIRCARTHOTA, MACHILIPATNAMKRISHNA 2 DISTRICT. 5. AKULA ANJAIAH, S/O KRISHNA MURTHY,W/O ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 20/516-5-A, NEAR MISHPACHRUCHCIRCARTHOTA, MACHILIPATNAM,KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal revision case by setting aside the Order dated 12.12.2025 Passed in CrI.M.P. No. 222 of 2025 in S.C. No.86 of 2025 on the file of Hon’ble IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and consequently allow the CrI.M.P. No. 222 of 2025 in S.C. No.86 of 2025 by discharging the petitioners herein/Accused No. 4 and 5 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners herein in S.C. No.86 of 2025 on the file of Hon’ble IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ABDUL MATHEEN S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 111/2026 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed, challenging the Order dated 12.12.2025, passed by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, in Crl.M.P.No.222 of 2025 in S.C. No.86 of 2025. 2. Heard Mr.S.Abdul Matheen, learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.4 & 5 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, A-1 deceived the defacto complainant by promising marriage and, with the consent of both families, entered into a relationship with her and cohabitated with her on 26.04.2019. Subsequently, A-1 postponing the marriage on various pretexts. When the complainant’s parents raised the issue with A-2 to A-5, they demanded dowry and refused to perform the marriage. Though the accused later agreed to marry her under terms of compromise dated 05.11.2020 before the police, they failed to do so and threatened the complainant. As a result, she lodged a complaint, leading to registration of a case in Crime No. 88 of 2022 for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, and 506 read with 34 IPC. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 & 5, have filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.222 of 2025 before the learned IX Additional District and 4 Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam seeking their discharge from the case. The learned Judge vide order dated 12.12.2025 dismissed the discharge petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the discharge petition the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 & 5 approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds for revision, submits that the petitioners are innocents and that the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature. He would further submit that there may be multiple reasons for not performing the marriage, when a betrothal not reached to the marriage is failure of social obligation and contract but not a crime. The Accused No.5 is only relative of Accused No.1 and he is not a family member. The role of the accused No.5 is not mentioned by the defacto complainant or any one of the prosecution witnesses. His name is only mentioned when the counseling took place at the police station on 05.11.2020 about his participation in betrothal function. Accused No.4 is the elder sister of Accused No.1 and the allegations against her is that she also accompanied her parents on 05.12.2018, when they convinced the defacto complainant’s parents for marriage of the complainant and A-1. The allegations made against the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.4 and 5 are omnibus and vague in nature, which do not constitute any offence. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the revision and would submit that the trial Court has duly considered all the contentions raised and rightly rejected them. She would further submit that only after careful consideration of the material placed before the Court, the Trial Court 5 has passed the impugned Order. The contentions raised by the petitioners are disputed questions of facts, which require investigation at full length of trial. There is sufficient ground against the petitioners to proceed in the case as there is a suspicion to establish the offence in the evidence of the prosecution. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the revision. 7. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the impugned Order passed by the learned Trial Court, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the impugned Order passed by the Trial Court is a well reasoned one. The contentions raised by the petitioners are disputed questions of facts, which require investigation at full length of trial. Learned Trial Judge has also observed that though it is contended that the main dispute is between A-1 and defacto complainant and the role of the petitioners is not at all present in the main offence, but the overall version of the defacto complainant both in FIR and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., of herself and other witnesses, shows the ground that along with A-1, the petitioners herein participated in commission of offence under Sections 417 and 506 of IPC along with A1. Learned Trial Judge has also observed that there is sufficient material and grounds against the petitioners to frame relevant charges. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there are no tenable grounds to entertain the present revision. In that view of the matter, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the presence of the petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 & 5 before the Trial Court is 6 dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 03.02.2026. UPS 7 222 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 111/2026 Dt.03.02.2026 UPS