APHC010576312023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8933/2023 Between: 1. BRAHMA SUBBARAO, S/O SRIRAMA MURTHY. AGED 35 YEARS. FLAT NO.401. SRI SAI RESIDENCY, ICR LAYOUT. PANATHU. BENGULURU CITY (AL) 2. BRAHMA SRIRAMA MURTHY, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO. AGED 66 YEARS, R/O D.NO.36-072-M138. TOWER LINE. ROAD NO.3, NIRMALA NAGAR. NEAR YSR PARK. PANDIRIPURAM. ONGOLE (A2) 3. BRAHMA RAJESH, S/O SRIRAMAMURTHY, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O AT FLAT NO.001, MITHUN SAI PARADISE. NEAR KEMPAMMA TEMPLE, BENGULURU (A3) ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) A N D 1. SHO OF DISHA PS, . VIJAYAWADA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATI. 2. BRAHMA ANJALI, W/O SUBBARAO D/O G D CH. NAGARAJ AGED 32 YEARS, R/O AT FLAT NO.401, R.S.TOWERS YENAMALAKUDURU. VIJAYAWADA CITY ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court Pleased to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.545/2022 of II Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Vijayawada for an offence under sec. 498A of IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of the D.P Act against the petitioners herein and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 2 Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the certified copy of the charge sheet in CC No.545/2023 on the file of the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada as the petitioners fded the Xerox copies of the charge sheet filed for kind perusal by this Hon’ble court, pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings relating the C,C.No.545 of 2023 to on the file of the 11 Addl.Chiet Metropolian Magistrate, Vijayawada pending disposal of the quash petition and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners relating to the CC NO.545/2023 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. YASWANTH GADE The Court made the following: SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 3 O R D E R This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 3, to quash the charge sheet in Calendar Case No.545 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, arising out of a case in Crime No.104 of 2022 of Disha Police Station, Vijayawada city, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the DP Act, 1961’). 2. 2. The allegations levelled as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the charge sheet, in brief, are that accused No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, accused No.2 is the father of accused Nos.1 and 3 and accused No.3 is the elder brother of accused No.1. (b) The marriage of respondent No.2/de facto complainant was solemnized with accused No.1 on 21.05.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs; that for sometime after the marriage, respondent No.2/de facto complainant and accused No.1 led happy matrimonial life and her in-laws also looked after her well; that subsequently, SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 4 accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have started harassing respondent No.2/de facto complainant for additional dowry; that the parents of respondent No.2/de facto complainant purchased household articles worth of Rs.2.00 lakhs to respondent No.2/de facto complainant, but again they demanded additional dowry of Rs.4.00 lakhs to purchase a car; that a proposal was made to perform marriage of younger sister of respondent No.2/de facto complainant with the brother of accused No.1, for which, the parents of respondent No.2/de facto complainant refused, as a result of which, accused No.1 was said to have increased the harassment towards respondent No.2/de facto complainant. It is the allegation that accused Nos.1 and 3 demanded respondent No.2/ de facto complainant to bring agriculture lands and other properties standing in the name of her mother L.W2/Gudiseva Durga Chandra Nagaraju, otherwise she would be necked out from the matrimonial home. On 11.11.2019 accused No.1 left the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and her child in the flat situated at Bangalore. The case was reported to police on 03.01.2020 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.3 of 2021 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada for the aforesaid offences and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Charge Sheet. SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 5 3. Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A3 would contend that 2nd and 3rd petitioners/A2 and A3, who are father-in-law and brother-in-law of 2nd respondent, never resided continuously along with 1st petitioner/A1 and they were falsely implicated only to wreck vengeance. It is further contended that there is no need to petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to demand 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to bring additional dowry, for the reason, 1st and 3rd petitioners are working as Software Employees and they were earning sufficiently and even, the property belongs to parents of 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, stands in her name only. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A3 that as 2nd respondent/de facto complainant tried to commit suicide in the house of 1st petitioner/A1 at Bengaluru on several occasions, A1 gave a report to the Station House Officer, Marathanhalli, Bengaluru city on 25.11.2019, and keeping the same in mind, 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant complained against petitioners/A1 to A3 to 1st respondent/Police at the instigation of her parents, as a counterblast to the earlier report made by 1st petitioner/A1. Learned counsel would further contend that earlier 2nd respondent/de facto complainant gave report to Marathanhalli Police Station, Bengaluru against the petitioners/A1 to A3, and a case in SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 6 Crime No.3 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada was registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and mother of A1, for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961 and the said crime was closed on 08.06.2020 due to ‘Insufficient Evidence’, but surprisingly, 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed second report to 1st respondent, with the same set of facts and reasons, which is the subject crime. According to learned counsel, only one investigation is permitted for the same incident and subsequent information should be handled as further investigation under Section 173 (8) of CrPC and a second FIR for the same offence or transaction is generally not maintainable as it constitutes an abuse of process. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant would contend that petitioners/A1 to A3 harassed the respondent No.2/de facto complainant physically and mentally and demanded her to bring additional dowry. Earlier also, due to the harassment meted out in the hands of petitioners/A1 to A3 and her mother-in-law, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant reported the harassment to police on 03.01.2020 and it was registered as a case in Crime No.3 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 7 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but the said crime was closed as Insufficient Evidence, only for the reason that, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant addressed a letter on 18.05.2020 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada stating not to proceed further in the Crime No.3 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada, as accused No.1/husband resumed the conjugal life with respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Learned counsel would further contend that as the earlier FIR in Crime No.3 of 2020 was closed at the instance of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant resorted to make another report as against the petitioners/A1 to A3 and registration of second FIR does not amount to abuse of process. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/de facto complainant would further contend that there are specific allegations as against petitioners/A1 to A3. According to learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant, these are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be adjudicated during the course of trial and in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, these disputes questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court and it is for the trial Court to decide the same. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 8 5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1 concurred with the submissions made by respondent No.2/de facto complainant and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A3, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for State representing respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Perused the material available on record. 7. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the Code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Haryana v. SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 9 Ch.Bhajanlal and Ors.1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 10 investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between both parties i.e. petitioners/A1 to A3 and respondent No.2/de facto complainant. It is also an undisputed fact that earlier, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant gave a report against the petitioners/A1 to A3 and also one Brahma Durga Kumari, who is none other than her mother-in-law to the police and it was registered as a case in Crime No.3 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/ A1 to A3 that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings as against the SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 11 petitioners/A1 to A3, as when one FIR, which was already registered against the petitioners/A1 to A3 on the same set of allegations, registration of another FIR against the petitioners/A1 to A3 is nothing but abuse of process of law. Learned counsel placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another2, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: (Paragraph No.58.9) “Administering criminal justice is a two-end process, where guarding the ensured rights of the accused under the Constitution is as imperative as ensuring justice to the victim. It is definitely a daunting task but equally a compelling responsibility vested on the court of law to protect and shield the rights of both. Thus, a just balance between the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed under the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. Accordingly, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. As a consequence, this is a fit case for quashing the second FIR to meet the ends of justice.” 10. Further, in T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala and others3, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: (Paragraph No.18) “An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as the First Information Report (FIR) 2 (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 348. 3 (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181. SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 12 though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more than one piece of information is given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the first information report – FIR postulated by Section 154 CrPC. All other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC.” A plain reading of T.T.Antony case (3rd supra) goes to show that violent incidents occurred in Kuthuparamba, Kerala, resulting in police firing and deaths and two separate FIRs were immediately registered regarding the incidents and investigation was already underway. In the SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 13 meantime, a subsequent Inquiry Commission Report accused police officials of unjustified firing and basing on the same, a third FIR was registered as against the police officials. The Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the core issue as to whether the police could register a new FIR for the same event that was already under investigation based on the earlier FIRs, held that the third FIR was illegal, as it constituted a second FIR for the same incident, which is not permitted under the CrPC. The Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah case (2nd supra) stemmed from abduction and killing of husband and wife and the subsequent killing of material witness. While the CBI investigation was already underway in respect of the husband’s encounter, the CBI registered a fresh FIR to investigate the death of material witness. The Hon’ble Apex Court ruled the second FIR was not maintainable concluding that the murder was part of the same conspiracy, necessitating a single investigation. 11. In the present case on hand, against accused No.1, who is husband, accused No.2, who is father-in-law and accused No.3, who is brother-in-law, of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, a case was already reported to police and it was registered as a case in Crime No.3 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada on 04.01.2020. SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 14 But, a perusal of the material on record goes to show that while the crime was pending for investigation, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant addressed a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada on 18.05.2020 stating that on 12.01.2020, her husband i.e. accused No.1 agreed for taking her to his fold and resume the conjugal life and accordingly, respondent No.2/de facto complainant went along with accused No.1 and her son to Bangalore and resumed the conjugal life and thereby, she requested the police not to proceed further in case in Crime No.3 of 2020 of Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada. Having regard to the said statement made by respondent No.2/de facto complainant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Vijayawada city issued notice to the respondent No.2/de facto complainant on 10.06.2020 stating that the case in Crime No.3 of 2020 of Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada was referred to the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada due to ‘Insufficient Evidence’. 12. A perusal of material on record further goes to show that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, after filing filed charge sheet in the present crime, filed an application on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada under Section 173 CrPC to grant permission to her to not to proceed with the earlier SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 15 case vide Crime No.3 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada and to enable her to proceed and pursue the charge sheet filed in the subject crime i.e. Calendar Case No.545 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Therefore, in respect of the same set of facts, though, earlier a case in Crime No.3 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada city was registered, registration of the present FIR on the same set of facts is maintainable, for the reason that since the respondent No.2/de facto complainant resumed her conjugal life with accused No.1 subsequent to registration of earlier FIR and therefore, she expressed her intention to the police, who registered the earlier FIR that she was not intending to proceed further in the said crime, and thereby, the police referred the said crime as Insufficient Evidence. Indeed, though no Refer Charge Sheet was filed by the police concerned in the earlier crime, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed an application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 173 CrPC seeking permission to not to proceed with the earlier FIR vide Crime No.3 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada city. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, as the conjugal life between de facto complainant and A1 was resumed, the de facto complainant intended not to proceed with the earlier crime, but thereafter, as accused again SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 16 started harassing her, she lodged a report on the same set of facts, leading to registration of the present crime and the same is maintainable in the eye of law. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 would contend that the accused Nos.2 and 3, who are father-in-law and brother-in-law of respondent No.2/de facto complainant are falsely implicated into the crime just because they are family members of accused No.1, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement and such generalized sweeping accusations not supported by concrete evidence, cannot form basis for criminal prosecution. He placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others v. State of Telangana and Another4, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: (Paragraph Nos.27, 30 and etc.,) “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 generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts 4 (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 735. SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 17 must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.” “30. The inclusion of Section 498-A IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there has been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalized allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, the Supreme Court has, time and again, cautioned prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.” “The Supreme Court is not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of the aforesaid observations made by the present Court but the Court should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant i.e. the husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 18 to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. The High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants. Consequently, the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet filed and the trial pending in the matter, against Appellants 1 to 6, are quashed.” Learned counsel also placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Another5, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: (Paragraph Nos.24, 25 and 27) “24. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. The Court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. 25. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint under Section 498-A IPC, the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations… The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is 5 (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 756. SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 19 difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 27. Mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.” Further, in Vinti Ramakrishna, W.G.District and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad and Another6, this Court held as under: (paragraph No.8) “8. A reading of the recitals in the First Information Report and the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC shows that there is absolutely no averment that the complainant and other public servants were assaulted or restrained from carrying on their work. A perusal of the aid material further shows that the petitioners only stopped them, and beyond that, there is absolutely no averment, as stated in the charge sheet, that the complainant and other public servants were assaulted or restrained form discharging their official duties. It is surprising for 6 2022 SCC OnLine AP 3516. SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 20 the Court to ascertain as to how such statement has come in the charge sheet, in the absence of any such averment either in the First Information Report or in the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC of the complainant. In view of the same, this Court feels that the said statement is clearly an improvement that has come up in the charge sheet, without there being any supporting material. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of the subject land.” 14. A plain reading of the propositions of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions goes to show that the tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon and 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. But, in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Others7, it was held that the police are required to register an FIR as soon as they receive information about a cognizable offence. Failure to do so is considered a violation of legal and constitutional and shall invite contempt. Therefore, having regard to the guidelines of the above propositions of law, the core issue is whether there is any specific allegations as against the petitioners/A1 to A3 or they were falsely implicated into the crime. 7 AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187. SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 21 15. The respondent No.2/de facto complainant in her statement recorded by police under Section 161 CrPC stated that the accused No.1 used to scold and beat her; that during Covid-2019, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2/de facto complainant stayed together at Ongole and all the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have stated that the property given to her was not enough and scolded her to get more property and asked her to leave the conjugal home. It is the specific allegation that on 04.04.2021, accused No.3 scolded respondent No.2/de facto complainant on the pretext that she filed a case against her and sent her out of the house. She also stated in her statement that accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded her to get agricultural land. It is the specific accusation that subsequent to filing of Crime No.3 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada city, accused No.1 resumed the conjugal life with respondent No.2/de facto complainant, but one week thereafter, in the presence of her son, accused No.1 was alleged to have beat respondent No.2/de facto complainant on the pretext of filing the said crime against them. 16. A perusal of the statement of L.W2/Gudiseva Durga Chandra Nagaraju, father of respondent No.2/de facto complainant goes to show that the accused No.1 and his father and brother used to SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 22 say unnecessary things to accused No.1 and prevent him from coming near to respondent No.2/de facto complainant; that he got registered a flat in the name of respondent No.2/de facto complainant and L.W3/ Prathi Nagamalleswara Rao, who is brother-in-law of L.W2/Gudiseva Durga Chandra Nagaraju also got registered 260 square yards of land in the name of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, but even then, the accused No.1 did not change his attitude towards respondent No.2/de facto complainant. It further goes to show that subsequent to registration of Crime No.3 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada, accused No.1 resumed the conjugal life with respondent No.2/de facto complainant and few days thereafter, accused No.1 beat respondent No.2/de facto complainant on the pretext of filing the aforesaid crime. During Covid-19, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 resided together at Ongole and at that time also, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have harassed the respondent No.2/de facto complainant for want of additional property towards dowry. 17. A perusal of the entire material on record coupled with the statements of the material listed witnesses goes to show that there are specific accusations that are made as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 23 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 that the accused No.1 gave report to the Inspector of Police, Marathahalli Police Station, Bangalore against the respondent No.2/de facto complainant that she was alleged to have threatened him that she would commit suicide by mentioning the names of accused No.1 and his family members and as he reported the same to police, as a counter-blast, she got foisted the present crime roping the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a disputed question of fact, which has to be adjudicated after full-fledged trial is conducted, and the same cannot be adjudicated in an application filed under Section 482 CrPC. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 denied the allegations that were made in the charge sheet about the receipt of dowry at the time of marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2/de facto complainant, the same is also disputed question of fact, which has to be adjudicated only after conducting full-fledged trial. Since there are specific accusations that have been made as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the petition, that they were all alleged to have harassed 2nd respondent and demanded her to bring additional dowry, which are all disputed questions of fact, the same can be decided during the course of trial, and this Court, in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, would not be in a position to conduct a SRK, J Crl.P.No.8933 of 2023 24 roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact and quash the proceedings at this stage. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. 18. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 with regard to dispensing with the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 before the trial Court, this Court does not find any ground to dispense with the presence of 1st petitioner, who is accused No.1 in the subject Calendar Case. Insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, considering the severity of the accusations as against them, the presence of accused Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court is dispensed with, except on those dates when the trial Court feels that their presence is necessary. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 31st March, 2026. DNB