1 APHC010099272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2198/2025 Between: Setti Kiran Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Setti Pushpa and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. MOJJADA HARI KRISHNA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „the Cr.P.C.,‟)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.241 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, registered for the alleged 2 offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „the I.P.C‟) and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity „the DP Act‟). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. At the outset, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 1, Setty Pushpa, is no more. She died on 27.01.2025. Perused the record. 3. Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that ever since the date of the marriage, the petitioner, being the brother-in-law of respondent No. 1, was not residing in the matrimonial home. Subsequently, he went to Abu Dhabi and has been residing there from 13.01.2020 onwards. It is further submitted that all the allegations against the petitioner are concocted and have been made only with a view to implicate him out of personal vendetta. There are no specific averments as to the dates, time, or place of the alleged offences, and the allegations are omnibus in nature. The learned counsel submits that continuation of the proceedings on the file of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate, even after the death of respondent No. 1, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, he prays that the Criminal Petition be allowed. 4. Mr. M. Harikrishna, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, vehemently opposed the grant of any relief, much less quashment of the proceedings. He submits that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner by 3 respondent No. 1, both in the complaint filed before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate and in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, “Cr.P.C.”). He further submits that even sporadic incidents or occurrences would constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, “I.P.C.”). The mere death of respondent No. 1 would not absolve the petitioner of criminal liability. According to him, the Latin doctrine actio personalis moritur cum persona (a personal right of action dies with the person) has no application to the facts of the present case. 5. It is also submitted that the learned jurisdictional Magistrate erred in dismissing the D.V.C., notwithstanding the death of respondent No. 1, as there was another petition pending in which the son of the petitioner was also a party. Learned counsel further submits that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the present case, as it is not one of the rarest of rare cases and there is no abuse of process of law. The petitioner, therefore, has to face trial. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while reiterating the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, submits that in view of the specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, the matter requires a full-fledged trial. He further submits that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ cannot undertake a mini-trial at this stage. The truth or otherwise of the allegations can only be 4 determined during the course of trial. It is further submitted that the petitioner has to establish his innocence by leading defence evidence or, at the very least, by effectively cross-examining the material witnesses of the prosecution. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings C.C.No.241 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of „the Crl.P.C.,/ Section 528 of „the BNSS?” 8. Respondent No. 1 (wife, since deceased) filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 23.04.2021. The said complaint was referred to the Station House Officer, Bhimavaram II Town Police Station, under Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. for registration of a case. 9. Pursuant to the directions of the jurisdictional Magistrate, the 2nd respondent registered a case in FIR No. 496 of 2021 for the alleged offences under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of „the I.P.C.,‟ and Sections 3 and 4 of „the D.P. Act.,‟ and conducted investigation. Thereafter, a charge sheet was filed. 10. On perusal of the record, it reveals that the marriage between respondent No. 1 and Accused No. 1 was solemnized on 08.01.2020. Respondent No. 1 chose to lodge a private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, “Cr.P.C.”) in the month of April, 2021. The FIR was thereafter registered on 31.12.2021. 5 The petitioner/Accused No. 4 is the brother-in-law of respondent No. 1. As seen from the passport and visa endorsements placed on record, the petitioner has been residing in Abu Dhabi from 13.01.2020 onwards. 11. On a careful perusal of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 and her statement recorded under Section 161 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ there is no reference to the specific dates, time, or place of the alleged occurrences. She has merely made bald and omnibus allegations stating that her brother-in-law, Kiran Kumar, and his wife, Mounika, subjected her to mental and physical harassment and demanded additional dowry from her parents. 12. As noted supra, the petitioner has been residing in Abu Dhabi with his wife from 13.01.2020 onwards. Even upon perusal of the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner remain general and devoid of specific particulars. In the absence of specific details regarding the date, time, and place of the alleged offences, it would be difficult even for the learned Trial Court to frame appropriate charges. A charge must be specific and precise so as to enable the accused to effectively defend himself. If a charge is framed without specific particulars relating to the date, time, and place of occurrence, such charge may be said to be vague, uncertain, and unsustainable in law. 13. Be that as it may, in view of the bald and omnibus allegations levelled against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has been residing in Abu Dhabi from 13.01.2020 onwards, and further in view of the fact that respondent No. 1, who is the de facto complainant/victim, is no more, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings on the file of 6 the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. The possibility of securing a conviction appears to be remote and bleak, particularly when the de facto complainant is no longer alive and the remaining witnesses, namely L.Ws. 2 and 3, are only hearsay witnesses. 14. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings on the file of the learned Magistrate cannot be permitted to continue. 15. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.241 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, are hereby quashed As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 12.02.2026 KMS 7 220 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2198 of 2025 Date: 12.02.2026 KMS