APHC010506282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8116/2024 Between: 1.SHAIK BAJI SHA @ BAJI,, S/O. NAGUR SAHEB, 26 YEARS,(A1) MUSLIM, MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW AT GODRA VILLAGE, PANCHAMAHAL DISTRICT, GUJARATH STATE. 2.SHAIK JOHN BEE @ PEDDA MUNNI,, W/O. NAGUR SAHEB,(A2) 56 YEARS,MUSLIM, MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW AT GODRA VILLAGE,PANCHAMAHAL DISTRICT, GUJARATH STATE. 3.SHAIK NAGUR SAHEB @ NAGU SAHEB,, S/O. NAGU SAHEB, (A3) 66 YEARS,MUSLIM, MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW AT GODRA VILLAGE,PANCHAMAHAL DISTRICT, GUJARATH STATE. 4.SHAIK HUSSAIN VALI, S/O. NAGUR SAHEB, 30 YEARS,MUSLIM,(A4) MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW AT GODRA VILLAGE, PANCHAMAHAL DISTRICT, GUJARATH STATE. 5.SHAIK RAHEEM,, S/O. NAGUR SAHEB, 36 YEARS, MUSLIM,(A5) MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW AT GODRA VILLAGE, PANCHAMAHAL DISTRICT, GUJARATH STATE. 6.SHAIK KHAJABEE,, D/O. NAGUR SAHEB, 26 YEARS,(A6) MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW AT GODRA VILLAGE, PANCHAMAHAL DISTRICT, GUJARATH STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 2 1.THE STATE OF ANDRHA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2.SHAIK SAIDA BEE, W/O. SHAIK BAJI, 28 YEAR, MUSLIM, KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, ROMPICHERLA MANDAL. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.691 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Judge (Junior Division), Narsaraopet. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the presence of the Petitioners may be dispensed with in the course of trial, and prays for disposal of the Criminal Petition accordingly. 3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 argues that the complaint contains grave and specific allegations, supported by consistent narration, disclosing cognizable offences under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The de-facto complainant was allegedly subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment for additional dowry, along with sexual exploitation and indignities. A charge sheet has been filed after due investigation, with material establishing the 3 Petitioners’ involvement. The plea of false implication is termed an afterthought, and therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled to quashment at the threshold. 4. The allegations against the Petitioners, that they demanded additional dowry, subjected the complainant to cruelty, attempted sexual assault, and even threatened her life under the pretext of coronavirus infection, are grave and specific. Far from being vague or contradictory, the consistent narration of events highlights a clear pattern of harassment and abuse. The references to jurisdiction, timelines during lockdown, and the complainant’s departure from the matrimonial home do not dilute the seriousness of the charges but rather demonstrate the continuity of cruelty across circumstances. There are no merits in this Criminal Petition. 5. In view of the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. The personal presence of Petitioner Nos.1 to 6/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall stand dispensed with before the learned Trial Court, except on such dates as may be specifically directed by the learned Trial Court. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO,J Date: 06.02.2026 VTS