APHC010587322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 11420 of 2025 & 961 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11420 of 2025 Between: 1. INAGANTI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O VENKA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,R/O MACHAVARAM VILLAGE,NG PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,C/O INAGANTI VENKA REDDY,5-2-36, FLOOR-1, RAMALAYAM ROAD,OPP YADAGIRI TOWERS,KUKAT PALLY,MEDCHAL MALKAJGRIRI,TELANGANA - 500072. 2. INAGANTI RAMATULASAMMA, W/O VENKAREDDY,AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,RAPARLA POST,NAGULUPPALAPADU,PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. INAGANTI MURALIDHAR REDDY, S/O VENKA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RAPARLA POST,MACHAVARAM VILLAGE, NG PADU MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. INAGANTI VENKATA RAGHAVA REDDY, S/O VENKA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.FLAT NO. 203, 3 FLOOR,LAKSHMIPRIYA ENCLAVE,SYMALA NAGAR MAIN ROAD.BESIDE ARMY REQUIREMENT OFFICE,GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. INAGANTI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O MURALIDHAR REDDY,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,RAPARLA POST,MACHAVARAM VILLAGE, NG PADU MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. LNAGANTI SWAPNA, W/O VENKATA RAGHAVA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,C/O I.V RAGHAVA REDDY,B-103, APARNA CYBER LIFE,NEAR CITIZEN HOSPITAL,NALLAGANDIA, 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 TELANGNA. 7. PONUGOTI SRINIVASA REDDY ALIAS SRINIVASULA REDDY, S/O LATE PONUGOTI VENKAREDDY,AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,R/O 4- 14-29,DODIA VARI VEEDI, KAVALI,NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH 524201 8. PONUGOTI SRIDEVI, W/O SRINIVASULA REDDY.AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,R/O 4-14-29,DODIA VARI VEEDI, KAVALI,NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH 524201. 9. DAKA SURYAKUMARI, W/O YALAMANDAREDDY,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,D.NO. 262, REDDYPALEM,KARAVADI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH. 10. DAKA VENKATARAMANAREDDY, S/O YELAMANDA REDDY.AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,R/O 167, THANGELLA KASIM STREET,ONGOLE, PRAKASAM , ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AT AMARAVATI. 2. LNAGANTI AMRUTHA SAVITHRI, W/O INAGANTI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA REDDY,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O FLAT NO. 401, PRAKASAM TOWERS,SANTHAPETA, ONGOLE,PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 961/2026 Between: 1. INAGANTI VENKATESWARLU, C/O INAGANTI KOTI REDDYAGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,R/O 34-62-1024,MANGAMURU DONKA,SSN DEGREE COLLEGE NORTH SIDE,VTC, ONGOLE, LAWYERPET POST,ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 2. LNUGANTI VENKATARAMANAMMA, W/O INUGATI VENKATESWARLU.AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,R/O 34-62- 1024,MANGAMURU DONKA,SSN DEGREE COLLEGE NORTH SIDEVTC, ONGOLELAWYERPET POST,ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AT AMARAVATI. 2. INAGANTI AMRUTHA SAVITHRI, W/O INAGANTI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA REDDYAGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O FLAT NO. 401, PRAKASAM TOWERS,SANTHAPETA, ONGOLE,PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P MALLIKHARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. AYESHA AZMA S 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as the facts and circumstances of these two cases are one and the same, but the accused are different. 2. Criminal Petition No.11420 of 2025 and Criminal Petition No.961 of 2025 have been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (for brevity the ‘BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 to 13, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.690 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Excise Court, Ongole, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C), Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the D.P. Act’) and Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) 3. Sri P. Mallikharjuna Rao, the learned counsel for Petitioners submits that the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet do not satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P.Act’. It is argued that the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is personal in nature and can be attributed only to the spouse who contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. Therefore, implicating other family members and relatives, who are neither parties to the alleged second marriage nor directly involved, is legally unsustainable. The Petitioners further submit that 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 the prosecution has mechanically arrayed all family members without any specific overt acts, which amounts to a misuse of criminal law. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the allegations relating to dowry demand and harassment are vague, omnibus, and lack specific instances against each accused. Many of the accused were residing in different places and had no direct involvement in the marital affairs of Accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant. It is contended that the complaint has been filed with an oblique motive to harass the entire family and to exert pressure for settling personal disputes. Hence, it is submitted that continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No. 690 of 2022 against the Petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law, warranting quashment in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet, when taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P Act’. It is submitted that at the stage of quashment, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or adjudicate the truthfulness of the allegations. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the Accused No.1 contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, and the other accused actively participated 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 in facilitating, supporting, and concealing the said illegal act. Therefore, their implication cannot be said to be without basis. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the allegations regarding dowry demand and harassment are not vague but form part of a continuous course of conduct involving all the accused, including family members and relatives, who acted in concert. It is argued that merely because some accused were residing at different places does not absolve them of liability, as their role in instigating, aiding, or abetting the acts of cruelty and dowry demands is a matter to be established during trial. The contention of false implication is a question of fact which cannot be decided at this stage. Hence, it is prayed that the petition for quashment be dismissed, as the proceedings do not amount to abuse of process of law and require full-fledged trial for proper adjudication. 7. Ms. S. Ayesha Azma, The learned counsel for the respondent No.2, submits that the allegations set out in the complaint and the charge sheet, when taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P Act’. It is submitted that at the stage of considering a petition for quashment, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the allegations. The material collected in the course of investigation prima facie indicates that Accused No.1 contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 marriage, and that the other accused actively facilitated, supported, and concealed the said act. Therefore, their implication cannot be said to be baseless or unwarranted. 8. It is further submitted that the allegations relating to dowry demand and harassment are not vague or omnibus, but constitute a continuous course of conduct involving all the accused, including family members and relatives, who acted in concert. The mere fact that some of the accused were residing at different places does not absolve them of liability, as their role in instigation, aid, or abetment is a matter to be established during trial. The plea of false implication raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. Accordingly, it is submitted that the proceedings do not amount to an abuse of process of law and require a full-fledged trial for proper adjudication; hence, the petition for quashment is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 10. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 11. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.690/2022 against the Accused Nos.1, 3 to 13 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Excise Court, Ongole are liable to be quashed in exercise 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟/Section 528 of „the BNSS‟?" 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala1, wherein at para No.16 it is held as under: “16…A bare perusal of the penal provision would indicate that the order framing charge is erroneous on the face of the record because no person other than the spouse to the second marriage could have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC simplicitor. However, this is a curable defect, and the charge can be altered at any stage as per the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C.” 13. Thus, Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Nitheen supra held that the charge under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ against non-spouses is legally erroneous, but being a curable defect, it can be corrected at any stage under Section 216 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 14. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala2, wherein at para No.32 it is held as under: “32…The concept of double jeopardy can also be understood in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. “Life” under Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider connotation; it includes the right to live with human dignity. In the celebrated judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, this Court gave a new dimension to Article 21, wherein it stated that the right to live includes within its ambit the right to live with dignity. Under the umbrella of Article 21, various rights like right to free legal aid, right to speedy trial, right fair trial, etc. have been included. Similarly, protection against double jeopardy is also included under the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prosecuting a person for the same offence in same series of facts, for which he has 1 (2024) 8 SCC 706 2 (2022) 14 SCC 323 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 previously either been acquitted or has been convicted and undergone the punishment, affects the person‟s right to live with dignity. 15. Ergo, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.P. Gopalakrishnan supra held that the protection against double jeopardy, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, safeguards an individual’s right to live with dignity by preventing repeated prosecution for the same offence. As expanded in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Article 21 encompasses fair trial, speedy justice, and protection from arbitrary legal action. Thus, re-prosecuting a person for the same set of facts after acquittal or conviction violates their fundamental right to life and personal liberty. 16. The the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chand Dhawan (Smt) v. Jawahar Lal3, at para No.9 it is held as under: “9...We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has clearly erred in reaching the conclusion that the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the light of the allegations made in the complaint and the materials produced in support of those allegations by the appellant before the magistrate, the issue of the process to respondents 1 and 2 who are alleged to have solemnised the second marriage during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage of the appellant is proper and when process has been issued, the proceedings have to continue in accordance with law against these respondents 1 and 2. So far as other respondents are concerned, it may be said that they had been unnecessarily and vexatiously roped in. The allegations in the complaint so far as these respondents are concerned are vague. It cannot be assumed that they had by their presence or otherwise facilitated the solemnisation of a second marriage with the knowledge that the earlier marriage was subsisting. The explanation of the first respondent that the second respondent has been functioning as a governess to look after his children in the absence of the mother who had left them implies that respondents 1 and 2 are living together. In this background, the allegations made against respondents 3 to 7 imputing them with guilty knowledge unsupported by other material would not justify the continuance of the proceedings against those respondents.” 3 (1992) 3 SCC 317 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 17. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chand Dhawan (Smt) supra held that the Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings against respondents 1 and 2, as the allegations and material on record prima facie justified the issuance of process against them for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. Accordingly, the proceedings against respondents 1 and 2 are liable to continue in accordance with law. However, with respect to respondents 3 to 7, the Court found that they were unnecessarily and vexatiously implicated. The allegations against them were vague and did not disclose any material to show that they had knowledge of or facilitated the alleged second marriage. Mere presence or relationship is insufficient to infer culpability. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against respondents 3 to 7 was held to be unjustified. 18. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan4, at para Nos.3 and 4 it is held as under: “3... The essential ingredients of this offence are: (1) that the accused spouse must have contracted the first marriage (2) that while the first marriage was subsisting the spouse concerned must have contracted a second marriage, and (3) that both the marriages must be valid in the sense that the necessary ceremonies required by the personal law governing the parties had been duly performed.” 4. It may also be noticed that Section 494 IPC would come into play only if the second marriage becomes void by virtue of the fact that it had taken place in the lifetime of one of the spouses. Thus, it is not possible to accede to the contention of Mr Mulla that merely because the second marriage was void under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act hence Section 494 IPC would not be attracted. Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act runs thus: 4 (1979) 2 SCC 170 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 “Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the Penal Code, 1860 shall apply accordingly.” 19. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopal Lal supra held that to constitute an offence under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C (bigamy), it must be established that the accused had a valid first marriage, and during its subsistence, contracted a second marriage, with both marriages being performed in accordance with the essential ceremonies required under the applicable personal law. Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is attracted when the second marriage is rendered void due to its solemnization during the lifetime of a legally wedded spouse. Merely because a marriage is declared void under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’) does not exclude the applicability of Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C; rather, Section 17 of ‘the Act.,’ expressly makes such acts punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of ‘the I.P.C’. 20. In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, I am of the benign view that the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ being inherently personal in nature, is attributable solely to the spouse alleged to have contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. In the absence of any specific, cogent, and prima facie allegations indicating active participation, abetment, or facilitation, the implication of other family members and relatives, who are neither parties to the alleged second marriage nor connected with its solemnization, is ex facie untenable. The 12 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 indiscriminate arraignment of all family members as accused, without attribution of distinct overt acts, manifestly discloses non-application of mind and vitiates the prosecution. 21. Furthermore, the allegations pertaining to dowry demand and harassment are vague, omnibus, and bereft of material particulars, failing to disclose any specific role attributable to each of the accused. Several of the accused are residing at geographically distant places and lack any proximate nexus with the matrimonial affairs of Accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant. The complaint, thus, bears the imprint of having been instituted with an oblique and ulterior motive to harass the entire family and to exert undue pressure in relation to personal disputes. In such circumstances, the continuation of proceedings in C.C. No. 690 of 2022 against the Petitioners would constitute a manifest abuse of the process of law, warranting the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to quash the said proceedings in the interest of justice. 22. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations set out in the complaint and the charge sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 5 of the D.P.Act’. The allegation of bigamy, being personal in nature, can be attributed only to the spouse alleged to have contracted a second marriage, and not to other family members who are neither parties to nor directly involved in such alleged act. 13 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 23. Further, the prosecution has mechanically arrayed all family members as accused without attributing any specific overt acts, and the allegations relating to dowry demand and harassment are vague and omnibus in nature. It is also evident that several of the accused were residing separately and had no direct role in the matrimonial affairs of Accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant. The circumstances indicate that the complaint has been instituted with an oblique motive to harass the entire family and to exert pressure in personal disputes. 24. Accordingly, the continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.690 of 2022 against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the said proceedings in the interest of justice. 25. Consequently, Criminal Petitions are allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 to 13 in C.C.No.690 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Excise Court, Ongole are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO,J Date :31.03.2026 KMS 14 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11420 of 2025 and 961 of 2026 Dated 31.03.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 11420 and 961 of 2025 Date: 31.03.2026 KMS 362