APHC010490102024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7888/2024 Between: 1.PUVVADA VMNM SAI KIRAN KUMAR, S/O SRINIVASA RAO,AGE 31 YEARS, CASTE BY VYSAY, R/O HOUSE NO.6-15-12, AGNIMANDALA KOTAIAH STREET, VIJAYAWADA CITY,R/O A-105, KASTHUBA NIVAS ,VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.SRINIVASA RAO, ,AGE 60 YEARS, S/O VENKATA NARAYANA CASTE BY VYSYA, R/O HOUSE NO.6-15-12, AGNIMANDALA KOTAIAH STREET, VIJAYAWADA CITY,R/O A-105, KASTHUBA NIVAS ,VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.PUVVADA SUBBALAXMI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO,AGE 51 YEARS, CASTE BY VYSYA,, R/O HOUSE NO.6-15-12, AGNIMANDALA KOTAIAH STREET, VIJAYAWADA CITY,R/O A-105,KASTHUBA NIVAS ,VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4.B.V.MASTAN NANDINI, W/O I RAJESH, AGE 30 YEARS, CASTE BY VYSYA,CHIKAGON NRI USA. 5.YEKKALI KOTA SUBBA RAO, , S/O CHENCHU SUBBAIAH,AGE 65 YEARS, CASTE BY VYSYA,, R/O NEAR VAAGU CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA CITY, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6.EKKALI SUBBARATNAMMA, W/O YEKKALI KOTA SUBBA RAO , S/O CHENCHU SUBBAIAH,AGE 62 YEARS, CASTE BY VYSYA,, R/O NEAR VAAGU CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA CITY, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 7.INAVOLU PADMAVATHI,, W/O PRASAD ,AGE 62 YEARS, CASTE BY VYSYA,, R/O SATHALURU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, (NOW PALNADU DISTRICT) GUNTUR DISTRICT 2 8.GRANDHI NAGALAXMI KUMARI,, W/O. ANANTHA SUBBA RAO AGE 62 YEARS CASTE VYSYA R/O BALA NAGAR FATHE NAGAR HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI 2.KATAKAM KALPANA, W/O PUVVADAVMNM SAI KIRAN KUMAR AGE 31 YEARS, CASTE BY VYSYA R/O PLOT NO. U-1, GUPTAS EMERALD,MANGAMUR ROAD, ONGOLE , PRAKASHAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.D KASI RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.KASIM NAGASAIM 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 Petitioners in C.C.No.754 of 2023 (Crime No.72 of 2022 of Disha Women Police Station, Ongole) on the file of the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate at Ongole, Prakasham District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 489-A, 323, 506 read 3 with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.754 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, constitutes a manifest abuse of process of law. The allegations levelled by the Respondent No.2 are demonstrably vague, bereft of particulars, and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Even if the complaint is taken at its face value, the averments therein do not prima facie constitute the offences under the penal provisions invoked. The imputations are general, omnibus, and devoid of any specific overt act attributable to the Petitioners, thereby failing to satisfy the threshold requirement for criminal prosecution. It is a settled proposition of law that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue when the allegations are inherently improbable, mala fide, and instituted only with an oblique motive to harass the accused persons. 4. Furthermore, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the institution and continuance of the present proceedings against Petitioners amounts to sheer harassment. The allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and intimidation are not supported by any cogent material, and the charge sheet is founded upon conjectures and surmises rather than substantive evidence. The respondent-wife’s conduct, as borne out from the record, reveals 4 incompatibility and discord rather than any criminal culpability on the part of the petitioners. In the absence of any specific, credible, or legally sustainable accusation, the continuation of the proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is urged to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.754 of 2023, thereby securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of Court. 5. Per contra, Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and learned Counsel for respondent No.2, submit that the allegations contained in the complaint are not only grave but are supported by specific, cogent, and detailed averments which clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The complainant has meticulously narrated the acts of cruelty, dowry demands, misappropriation of ornaments, coercion regarding immovable property, and threats to her life and liberty, all of which demonstrate a continuous course of harassment and unlawful conduct by the accused persons acting in concert. The factual substratum, including monetary transfers, negotiations before elders, and threats communicated through electronic messages, establishes prima facie culpability and cannot be brushed aside as vague or omnibus. In such circumstances, the charge sheet represents a legitimate invocation of criminal jurisdiction, and the Petitioners’ attempt to seek quashment is nothing but an endeavour to stifle a genuine prosecution. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition and permit the trial to proceed in accordance with law. 5 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the record. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.754/2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate at Ongole, Prakasham District, are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’?" 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana1, at paragraph No.6 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.” 8. Thus, in K. Subba Rao supra it held that criminal proceedings are ordinarily not interfered with at the interlocutory stage unless there is abuse of process; however, the Court may intervene to secure the ends of justice. In matrimonial and dowry-related cases, distant relatives should not be implicated on omnibus allegations without specific instances of their involvement. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra2, at paragraph Nos.29 & 30, held as under: “29. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that when the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence 1 (2018) 14 SCC 452 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 6 collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. 30. In the present case also, as discussed above, the facts when taken at face value, do not reveal any specific instance of cruelty committed by the appellants herein. In our view, only stating that cruelty has been committed by the appellants herein due to some reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC being attracted. The next allegation regarding a specific incident relating to the miscarriage being caused by the appellants herein has also been discussed above. A bare perusal of the allegation and the analysis of the same when compared with the statement of the Doctor reveals that even if the allegations are accepted at the face value, it would not prima facie make out a case against the present appellants.” 10. Similarly, in Digambar supra it is observed that if the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even when taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence, the High Court is justified in quashing the proceedings. In the present case, the allegations do not disclose any specific instance of cruelty to attract Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’, and even the allegation regarding miscarriage, when examined with the doctor’s statement, does not make out a prima facie case against the appellants. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad3, at paragraph No.12, held as under: “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it 3 (2000) 3 SCC 693 7 takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.” 12. In this manner, in G.V. Rao supra it is ruled that there has been a rise in matrimonial disputes, where minor disagreements often escalate into serious criminal cases, unnecessarily implicating elders who could have facilitated reconciliation. Such litigation should not be encouraged, as prolonged court battles consume years of the parties’ lives instead of allowing them to amicably resolve their differences. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana4, at paragraph No.27, held as under: “27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.” 14. Therefore, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra it is observed that a mere reference to family members in matrimonial disputes, without specific allegations of active involvement, cannot justify criminal prosecution, as courts must guard against sweeping and generalized accusations. Where relatives 4 (2025) 3 SCC 735 8 live separately and no specific role is attributed to them, implicating them would amount to abuse of the process of law. 15. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Boddu Rani v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, at paragraph No.14, held as under: “14. In the backdrop of the legal position discussed supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present In the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. Coming to the facts of the present case, a fair look at the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet, except making casual reference of names of A3 and A4 that after giving birth to the female child, when they visited their house, they used to join A1 to harass the wife, nothing is attributed in specific against them. But coming to the case of A2, there are specific allegations. In that view, it is tenable to quash the crime against A3 and A4 and not against A2.” 16. By relying on several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, a learned Single Judge in Boddu Rani supra quashed the proceedings against Accused Nos.3 and 4, who are relatives of the husband. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar6, at paragraph Nos.5 and 6, held that ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court, when approached for quashment of criminal proceedings, would not appreciate the defence of the accused nor consider the veracity of the documents relied upon by him. Nevertheless, an exception has been carved out in appropriate cases, as held in Yin Cheng Hsiung v. Essem Chemical Industries7; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal8; and Harshendra Kumar D. v. 5 2025 SCC OnLine AP 183 6 (2019) 13 SCC 350 7 (2011) 15 SCC 207 8 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9 Rebatilata Koley9, that where the document relied upon is a public document or its veracity is not disputed, the same can be considered. 18. Upon a meticulous appraisal of the record and in light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is persuaded to hold that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are manifestly vague, omnibus, and bereft of any specific overt act. The factual substratum, even when taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 489-A, 323, 506 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 4 of ‘the D.P.Act’. As observed in Digambar supra, when the uncontroverted allegations fail to prima facie constitute an offence, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. The continuation of prosecution in such circumstances would amount to a palpable abuse of process, resulting in miscarriage of justice, and therefore warrants interdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS.’ 19. Furthermore, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the judicial caution enunciated in K. Subba Rao supra and Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra, wherein it was categorically held that distant relatives or family members cannot be roped in on the basis of sweeping and generalized allegations unsupported by concrete evidence. The present case epitomizes such indiscriminate implication, where the respondent-wife’s grievances, at best, reveal matrimonial discord and incompatibility rather than criminal culpability. 9 (2011) 3 SCC 351 10 In consonance with the dictum in G.V. Rao supra, the Court is duty-bound to prevent the escalation of minor matrimonial skirmishes into protracted criminal litigation that consumes the prime years of the parties. Hence, to secure the ends of justice and prevent the misuse of criminal law, the proceedings in C.C.No.754 of 2023 are liable to be quashed. 20. Upon an anxious and circumspect scrutiny of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 before the Station House Officer, Disha Police Station, Prakasam District her statement recorded under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ the depositions of other witnesses recorded during investigation, and the averments contained in the final report, this Court finds that the imputations levelled against Petitioner No.2 (the father- in- law) and Petitioner No.3 (the mother- in- law) are singularly bereft of particulars. No discernible specification of date, time, place, or any distinct overt act is ascribed to them so as to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. 21. It is further manifest that Respondent No.2 has not adumbrated the quantum or the character of the so- called “additional dowry” allegedly demanded by the Petitioners. The pleadings are wholly wanting in the requisite particularisation that would elevate the accusations from bare assertion to a legally cognisable foundation. 22. The allegations thus assume the complexion of vague, omnibus, and sweeping averments. In the absence of precise, particularised allegations evincing the active, proximate involvement of Petitioners, the criminal process set in motion against them cannot be countenanced. To permit continuation of 11 such proceedings, founded, as they are, on nebulous assertions unbacked by cogent material, would be to sanction an abuse of the process of Court and an unwarranted invocation of penal law. The prosecution against Petitioners, therefore, merits interdiction at the threshold. 23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioners in C.C.No.754 of 2023 (Crime No.72 of 2022 of Disha Women Police Station, Ongole) pending on the file of the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate at Ongole, Prakasham District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 27.02.2026 VTS