APHC010637202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12271/2025 Between: 1. DEVARAPALLI KALAVATHI, W/O.D.VICTOR BABU, FEMALE, AGED 54 YEARS,OCC PVT.EMLOYEE, R/O.H.NO. 10-32, NEAR ELECTRICAL OFFICE,HARIJANAWADA, GANNAVARAM V 8I M, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORTHROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMEN POLICE STATION,VIJAYAWADA CITY HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI.GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. KALAPALA KAMALA PRIYA, W/O.DEVARAPALLI RAVI KIRAN LATE, FEMALE, AGED 35 YEARS, OCCPVT.EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.35-7- 33, GIRIPURAM, NEW COLONY,BODDU SUNDARAM STREET, VIJAYAWADA -10. KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B P RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 3. LEGAL AID 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 Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.3031 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „the I.P.C‟). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Respondent No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the mother of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 is the husband of Respondent No.2 and died on 09.04.2025 due to cardiac arrest. 4. Respondent No.2, on 08.02.2020, lodged a complaint against the Petitioner and Accused No.1, which was registered as a case in Crime No.29 of 2020 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A of „the I.P.C‟. The allegations against Accused No.1, who is now deceased, and the Petitioner, being the mother-in-law of Respondent No.2, are that Accused No.1 was addicted to vices, was irresponsible, and used to beat Respondent No.2. It is further alleged that he maintained illicit relationships with other women. 3 5. It is also alleged that the Petitioner, being the mother of Accused No.1, did not show any responsibility in restraining him and neither admonished nor corrected his behavior. The Respondent No.2 further alleged that the Petitioner used to instigate Accused No.1 to assault her. 6. However, a careful reading of the complaint reveals that there is no allegation that the Petitioner or her son ever demanded additional dowry. There are no allegations of cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Mere allegations of physical assault by Accused No.1 or his alleged illicit relationships do not, by themselves, constitute “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498-A of „the I.P.C.,‟ in the absence of any dowry- related harassment. 7. Further, there are no specific details as to the dates, time, or place of the alleged acts of assault by Accused No.1, nor are there specific particulars regarding the alleged instigation by the Petitioner. The FIR, as well as the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer from Respondent No.2 and other prosecution witnesses, do not disclose allegations sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of „the I.P.C‟. 8. It is pertinent to note that the said decree was passed subsequent to the registration of the FIR at the instance of Respondent No.2. Further, as stated supra, the husband of Respondent No.2 (Accused No.1) died on 13.03.2025. In view of the dissolution of marriage and the subsequent death of Accused No.1, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, who is only the mother-in-law of Respondent No.2, would serve no useful purpose. 4 9. In view of the fact that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner would not attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of „the I.P.C.,‟ continuation of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 10. In this regard, it is opposite to refer the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana1, wherein at paragraph No.6 it is 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.” 11. 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. 12. 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 1(2018) 14 SCC 452 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 5 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.” 13. 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. 14. 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.” 3(2000) 3 SCC 693 6 15. 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. 16. 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.” 17. 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 7 18. 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.” 19. 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. 20. 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 Petitioner is 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 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 52025 SCC OnLine AP 183 8 therefore warrants interdiction under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.‟/Section 528 of „the BNSS.‟ 21. Further, 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. 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. 22. Furthermore, a decree of divorce was granted by a competent Court in F.C.O.P. No.365 of 2023 between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, by judgment and decree dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Family Court Judge, Vijayawada. Accordingly, the marriage between Respondent No.2 and the son of the Petitioner stood dissolved. 23. In this regard, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj6, wherein it is held that when the marriage between the spouses has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent, the criminal proceedings for the offences 6 (Criminal Appeal No.741 of 2009 dated 10.12.2014) 9 punishable under Section 498-A of „the IPC‟ and Sections 3 and 4 of „the D.P.Act‟ are liable to be quashed, as continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. 24. This Court, in Criminal Petition No.5840 of 2024, dated 19.02.2026, has also quashed the proceedings following the said judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Hence, to secure the ends of justice and prevent the misuse of criminal law, the proceedings in C.C.No.3031 of 2021 are liable to be quashed. 25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioner in C.C.No.3031 of 2021 (Crime No.29 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada) pending on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.03.2026 KMS 10 90 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12271 of 2025 Date: 23.03.2026 KMS