APHC010461582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9161/2025 Between: 1.VASA SHIVA PAVAN KUMAR, S/O. NAGA BALA SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 25 YRS, HINDU, OCC R/O KARNIBATHULA, DAGGULURU VILLAGE OF PALAKOL MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP, BY ITS LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. 2.ANDE KEERTHANA, W/O KOTI LINGA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 29 YRS, HINDU, OCC HOUSEHOLD R/O. KARNIBATHULA, 28 TH WARD, PALAKOL TOWN, WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.V PREETI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.KONDETI RANGA SRINIVAS 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3.LEGAL AID The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.158 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakolu. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. The allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, who is nephew of Accused No.1 by virtue of marriage, is that he also abused and behaved indecently. What is the way in which such behaviour displayed is not mentioned in the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2. The chargesheet was filed against all the Accused including the Petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85 read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS’ and Sections 3, 4 of ‘the D.P.Act’. 4. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana1, wherein at paragraph Nos.35 & 36 it is held as under: “35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 3 unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law. 36. Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean that relatives cannot be brought under the purview of the aforesaid penal provisions when they have actively participated in inflicting cruelty on the daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such allegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such members of the family or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a matrimonial discord and allegations made by an emotionally disturbed person. Each and every case of domestic violence will thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case.” 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana2, at paragraph No.6 it is held as under: “6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 6. The ingredients of the above-mentioned Sections would not attract, let alone squarely attract to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is Afterall nephew of Accused No.1. He is residing in Hyderabad, whereas the Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 are residing in Palakollu. Only sweeping allegations are levelled against the Petitioner. The allegations are omnibus in nature. Such bald allegations cannot be brought under the preview of 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ There is no prima facie case made out under Section 85 of ‘the BNS’. Pendency of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court would amount to abuse of process of Court. 2 (2018) 14 SCC 452 4 7. In the result, and for all the aforesaid reasons, the present Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, proceedings in C.C.No.158 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakolu, are quashed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.02.2026 VTS