HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI **** CRIMINAL PETITION No.10770 of 2025 Between: KOLA SRINIVAS VAMSI KRISHNA, S/O. RAMARAO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM NOW AT CUMMING, GEORGIA OF USA, LOOK OUR CIRCULAR SUSPECT NO. 2146848. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI, THROUGH II TOWN POLICE STATION. 2. KOLA AKHILA, , W/O ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O 15-7A-12/1, VENKATA RATNA PURAM, KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): **** DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 17.02.2026 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 * THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO + CRIMINAL PETITION No.10770 of 2025 % 17.02.2026 # Between: KOLA SRINIVAS VAMSI KRISHNA, S/O. RAMARAO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM NOW AT CUMMING, GEORGIA OF USA, LOOK OUR CIRCULAR SUSPECT NO. 2146848. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI, THROUGH II TOWN POLICE STATION. 2. KOLA AKHILA, , W/O ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O 15-7A-12/1, VENKATA RATNA PURAM, KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): ! Counsel for the Petitioner : S.Dushyanth Reddy ^Counsel for the Respondents : 1. P. Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor 2. Kondeti Ranga Srinivas (Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2) 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2018) 14 SCC 452 2. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 3. (2000) 3 SCC 693 4. (2025) 3 SCC 735 5. 2025 SCC Online AP 183 6. (2019) 13 SCC 350 7. (2011) 15 SCC 207 8. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9. (2011) 3 SCC 351 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10770/2025 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.1046 of 2023 (Crime No.209 of 2020 of II Town (L&O) Police Station, Kakinada) on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, registered for the offences punishable under Section 489-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 & 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. The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 05.08.2020 at Kakinada II Town Police Station, and the same was registered as Crime No.209 of 2020. After thorough investigation, respondent No.1 filed a charge sheet, and the same was registered as C.C.No.1046 of 2023 and is pending on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. 4. Mr. S. Dhushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been in the United States of America. He is the brother- 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 in-law of respondent No.2 and the younger brother of Accused No.1. He has not even attended the marriage. The allegations are omnibus in nature. It is urged to allow the petition by quashing the proceedings, as they are nothing but an abuse of process of law. No prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/Accused No.4 even under Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’ and Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the Act’. 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Mr. K. Ranga Srinivas, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2, submit that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.4 by the de-facto complainant that the petitioner joined the other accused in demanding additional dowry and harassed respondent No.2 for not meeting the unlawful demands. As there is a prima facie case against the petitioner, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 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.1046/2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, 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: 1 (2018) 14 SCC 452 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 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 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 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 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 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 3 (2000) 3 SCC 693 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 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 live separately and no specific role is attributed to them, implicating them would amount to abuse of the process of law. 4 (2025) 3 SCC 735 10 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 15. In view of the omnibus allegations levelled against the petitioner, the fact that he has not even attended the marriage of Accused No.1 and respondent No.2, and that he is a permanent resident of the United States of America, continuation of the proceedings on the file of the learned Trial Court is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 16. 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. 17. By relying on several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge in Boddu Rani supra quashed the proceedings against Accused Nos.3 and 4, who are relatives of the husband. 18. 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 5 2025 SCC OnLine AP 183 6 (2019) 13 SCC 350 11 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 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. Rebatilata Koley9, that where the document relied upon is a public document or its veracity is not disputed, the same can be considered. 19. As seen from the record, especially the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 with the police, the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ from respondent No.2, the averments in the charge sheet, and more importantly, the statements recorded from other witnesses, the allegations are just omnibus in nature. There is no reference to the date, time, and place of the alleged demand for dowry. The petitioner is the younger brother of Accused No.1 and the brother-in-law of respondent No.2. He has been residing in the United States of America, State of Georgia. Of course, a Look Out Circular bearing Suspect No.2146848 was issued against the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Indisputably, the petitioner has not even attended the marriage of Accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The allegation is that he demanded some money over phone. The marriage between Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 is a second marriage. 7 (2011) 15 SCC 207 8 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9 (2011) 3 SCC 351 12 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 20. By way of a memo, a photocopy of the passport along with necessary immigration stamps was filed by the petitioner, showing that at the relevant point of time he was residing in the USA. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.1046 of 2023 (Crime No.209 of 2020 of II Town (L&O) Police Station, Kakinada), pending on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.02.2026 Note: LR copy to be marked. B/o RSI 13 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10770 of 2025 Dated 17.02.2026 98 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10770 of 2025 Date: 17.02.2026 Note: LR copy to be marked. B/o RSI