APHC010666372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12751/2025 Between: 1. RAJANI NERSU,, W/O SRINIVASA RAO NERSU, AGED 51 YEARS, M.A, M. PHILL, B.ED, HEADMISTRESS AT PRACHIN GLOBAL SCHOOL, PATANCHERU. RESIDENT OF TYPE-IV ORDANANCE FACTORY. ESTATE, YEDDIIMAILARAM.- PHONE- 8985554945 2. AKSHIT N.R,, S/O SRINIVASA RAO N, AGED 25 YEARS, M.SC. BUSINESS ANALYTICS, MASTER'S STUDENT OF NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY, NEW CASTLE, UNITED KINGDOM. RESIDENT OF TYPE-IV ORDANANCE FACTORY. ESTATE, YEDDURNAILARAM PHONE- 8985554945 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UNGUTURU P.S., KRISHNA DISTRICT. REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HONBLE HIGH GOUT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. MEKALA PAVANI, W/O ANJANEYULU, 39 YRS, C/YADAVA, HOUSE WIFE, MANIKONDA, UNGUTURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. MEKALA ANJANEYURU, S/O SATYANARAYANA, 47 YRS, G/YADAVA, APBH COLONY, MOULALI, HYDERABAD-. 4. MEKALA RANGAYANAKAMMA, WM SATYANARAYANA, 69 YRS, C/YADAVA, AP BH COLONYI MOULALI, HYDERABAD. 2 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P LAKSHMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. HARI KRISHNA TATA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 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 BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟)seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3&4 in C.C.No.4 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada (for brevity, „the learned Trial Court‟). 2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3. Mr. P. Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.3 is the sister-in-law of Respondent No.2, and Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 is the son of Petitioner No.1. The marriage between Petitioner No.1, Rajani Nersu, and her husband Srinivasa Rao was performed about 35 years ago, and ever since, she has been residing with her husband in Hyderabad. Her husband has been working in the Defence Ordnance Factory, Hyderabad. Petitioner No.2 is presently pursuing his Master‟s course in Business Analytics at Northumbria University, Newcastle, United Kingdom. There are no references to the date, time, or place of the alleged offences attributed against the Petitioners. It is urged that the Petitioners had nothing to do with the alleged harassment against Respondent No.2, and continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. 4 4. Per contra, Sri Hari Krishna Tata, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, submits that Respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment not only by Accused Nos.1 and 2 but also by the Petitioners. Specific allegations were made against the Petitioners, but later the police obtained her signature while deleting their names from the charge sheet. She inadvertently signed the “no objection” memo. It is contended that the Petitioners played a major role in the harassment, as they used to visit Accused No.1‟s house every Saturday and Sunday, abuse Respondent No.2 and her daughter, and sometimes Petitioner No.2 attempted to beat them, claiming they were not family members of Accused No.1. It is urged that the petition be dismissed as triable issues exist between them. 5. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the final report was filed in favour of the Petitioners, stating that they had not committed any offence. Respondent No.2 unnecessarily dragged them into litigation without specific instances of date, time, or place of alleged offences. It is prayed that appropriate orders be passed. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. 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.4 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada 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‟?” 5 8. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, in Mukesh Bansal v. State of U.P1 at paragraph Nos.48 and 49, held as under: “48. Thus assesing the totality of the circumstances, object and the allegation of misuse of this piece of legislation in a shape of Section 498A IPC, the Court is proposing the safeguards after taking the guidace from the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (Supra) keeping in view the growing tendency in the masses to nail the husband and all family members by a general and sweeping allegations. 49. Thus, It is directed that:— (i) No arrest or police action to nab the named accused persons shall be made after lodging of the FIR or complaints without concluding the “Cooling-Period” which is two months from the lodging of the FIR or the complaint. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter would be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committe(hereinafter referred to as FWC) in the each district. (ii) Only those cases which would be transmitted to FWC in which Section 498-A IPC along with, no injury 307 and other sections of the IPC in which the imprisonment is less than 10 years. (iii) After lodging of the complaint or the FIR, no action should take place without concluding the “Cooling-Period” of two months. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter may be referred to Family Welfare Committee in each districts. (iv) Every district shall have at least one or more FWC (depending upon the geographical size and population of that district constituted under the District Legal Aid Services Authority) comprising of at least THREE MEMBERS. Its constitution and function shall be reviewed periodically by the District & Sessions Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court of that District, who shall be the Chairperson or Co-chairperson of that district at Legal Service Authority. (v) The said FWC shall comprise of the following members:— (a) a young mediator from the Mediation Centre of the district or young advocate having the practices up to five years or senior most student of Vth year, Government Law College or the State University or N.L.Us. having good academic track record and who is public spirited young man, OR; (b) well acclaimed and recognized social worker of that district having clean antecedant, OR; (c) retired judicial officers residing in or nearby district, who can devote time for the object of the proceeding OR; (d) educated wives of senior judicial or administrative officers of the district. (vi) The member of the FWC shall never be called as a witness. (vii) Every complaint or application under Section 498A IPC and other allied sections mentioned above, be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committee by the concerned Magistrate. After receiving the said complaint or FIR, the Committee shall summon the contesting parties along with their four senior elderly persons to have personal interaction and would try to 12022 SCC OnLine All 395 6 settle down the issue/misgivings between them within a period of two months from its lodging. The contesting parties are obliged to appear before the Committee with their four elderly persons (maximum) to have a serious deliberation between them with the aid of members of the Committee. (viii) The Committee after having proper deliberations, would prepare a vivid report and would refer to the concerned Magistrate/police authorties to whom such complaints are being lodged after expiry of two months by inserting all factual aspects and their opinion in the matter. (ix) Continue deliberation before the Committee, the police officers shall themselves to avoid any arrest or any coercive action pursuant to the applications or complaint against the named accused persons. However, the Investigating Officer shall continue to have a peripheral investigation into the matter namely preparing a medical report, injury report, the statements of witnesses. (x) The said report given by the Committee shall be under the consideration of I.O. or the Magistrate on its own merit and thereafter suitable action should be taken by them as per the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure after expiry of the “Cooling-Period” of two months. (xi) Legal Services Aid Committee shall impart such basic training as may be considered necessary to the members of Family Welfare Committee from time to time(not more than one week). (xii) Since, this is noble work to cure abrasions in the society where tempos of the contesting parties are very high that they would melow down the heat between them and try to resolve the misgivings and misunderstanding between them. Since, this is a job for public at large, social work, they are acting on a pro bono basis or basic minimum honorarium as fixed by the District & Sessions Judge of every district. (xiii) The investigation of such FIRs or complaint containing Section 498A IPC and other allied sections as mentioned above, shall be investigated by dynamic Investigating Officers whose integrity is certified after specialized training not less than one week to handle and investigate such matrimonal cases with utmost sincerity and transparency. (xiv) When settlement is reached between the parties, it would be open for the District & Sessions Judge and other senior judicial officers nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case.” 9. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal 2, at paragraph No.26 held as under: “26. The transfer petitions and special leave petitions are disposed of in terms of the above order. The guidelines framed by the High Court of Allahabad in the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022 vide paras 32 to 38, with regard to „Constitution of Family Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A, IPC shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities.” 22025 SCC OnLine SC 1494 7 10. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana3, at paragraph No.6 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. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . 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. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551” 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 Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra4, at paragraph Nos.9 & 10 held as under: “9. Before examining the FIR along with the complaint of the complainant, we may refer to the parameters that are to be borne in mind while entertaining the prayer for quashing of the FIR. If the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be justified. Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case. As regards the ingredients for making out an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code is concerned, the requirement is that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The latter part of the provision refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. These aspects have been considered in detail in a recent 3(2018) 14 SCC 452 42025 SCC OnLine SC 2090 8 decision in Digambar (supra) (to which one of us, B.R. Gavai, J, as he then was, was a party). 10. A perusal of the FIR and its consideration in entirety indicates that statements of a general nature have been made therein as against the present appellants. The complainant states that on 07.08.2021 when she had gone to her parental house, she had received a call from her mother- in-law raising a demand for clothes and jewellery. When she returned to her matrimonial house on 30.08.2021, she had taken few clothes for the family members. Except this statement, all other statements are of a general nature as well as vague without any particulars. There are other omnibus statements made in the complaint without any particulars whatsoever. It is also to be noted that for the purpose of constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, cruelty as indicated in the Explanation to the said provision must be stated to be inflicted. The cruelty caused by the husband and his family members should be of such nature that it is inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. Such allegations are absent in the present case. We do not find that on a complete reading of the complaint, a prima facie case for proceeding under Section 498-A of the Penal Code has been made out against the appellants.” 13. Thus, in Sanjay D. Jain supra it is held that quashing of an FIR is justified where the allegations, even if taken at face value, are vague and do not prima facie constitute the ingredients of an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 18605. In the absence of specific allegations of cruelty of the nature contemplated under the provision, continuation of proceedings would be unwarranted. 14. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad6, 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 5 „the I.P.C.,‟ 6(2000) 3 SCC 693 9 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.” 15. Thus, in G.V. Rao supra it is held that the growing trend of matrimonial disputes often escalates minor domestic issues into serious criminal litigation, unnecessarily implicating family elders and aggravating hostility. Courts should therefore discourage such litigation and promote amicable settlement, as prolonged legal battles waste the valuable years of the parties involved. 16. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat7, at paragraph No.15 held as under: “15. From the above understanding of the provision, it is evident that, “cruelty” simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence, rather it must be done either with the intention to cause grave injury or to drive her to commit suicide or with intention to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands.” 17. Thus, in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda supra it is held that mere cruelty is insufficient to attract the offence under Section 498-A of „the I.P.C.‟ The cruelty must be intentional, either to cause grave injury or suicide, or to coerce the woman or her relatives into meeting unlawful demands. 18. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra8, 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 7(2025) 2 SCC 116 82024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 10 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.” 19. Thus, in Digambar supra it is held 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. 20. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana9, 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.” 21. Thus, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra it is held that a mere reference to family members in matrimonial disputes, without specific allegations of active involvement, cannot justify criminal prosecution, as courts must guard 9(2025) 3 SCC 735 11 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. 22. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 10, at paragraph No.4 held as under: “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under the Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of the Penal Code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498-A IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.” 23. Thus, in Arnesh Kumar supra it is held that though Section 498-A of „the I.P.C.,‟ was enacted to curb cruelty against married women, it has often been misused to harass husbands and their relatives through indiscriminate arrests. The low conviction rate and high pendency of cases reflect the need for caution and safeguards against mechanical arrests under the provision. 24. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar11, at paragraph Nos.11, 17 & 21 held as under: 10(2014) 8 SCC 273 12 “11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498- AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” 25. Thus, in Kahkashan Kausar supra it is held that though Section 498-A of „the I.P.C.,‟ was enacted to curb cruelty, it is often misused to implicate the husband‟s relatives through general and omnibus allegations without specific roles being attributed. In the absence of a prima facie case, compelling such relatives to undergo criminal trial amounts to abuse of process and must be discouraged. 26. On a careful perusal of the record, Respondent No.2 married Accused No.1, Mekala Anjaneyulu, on 31.01.2004 at Manikonda village. They were blessed with a female child. Later, disputes arose, and Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Unguturu Mandal. In her 11(2022) 6 SCC 599 13 complaint, she alleged that the Petitioners instigated her husband and in-laws to harass her, and that Petitioner No.1 abused her in filthy language. However, on careful perusal, no specific instances of date, time, or place of such alleged acts are mentioned. Petitioner No.1, aged about 52 years, has been residing separately in Hyderabad for 35 years, is highly educated (M.A., M.Phil., B.Ed.), and is working as Headmistress at Prachin Global School, Patancheru. Petitioner No.2, aged about 27 years, is pursuing higher studies in abroad. The Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation, filed a charge sheet only against Accused Nos.1 and 2, opining that the Petitioners‟ role was not established. Statements of LWs.4 to 6, who are elders and neighbors, also confirm that Petitioners never harassed Respondent No.2 nor demanded dowry. 27. However, Respondent No.2, gave a sworn statement before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gannavaram, alleging that the Petitioners played a major role in harassment. She claimed that she inadvertently signed a memo prepared by a constable deleting their names. Even taking her deposition at face value, she has not alleged that Petitioner No.2 actually beat either her or her daughter. She only alleged that he attempted to do so. The allegations made by Respondent No.2 in her sworn statement are omnibus in nature. No specific date, time, or place of the alleged offence under Section 498-A of „the I.P.C.,‟ is mentioned therein. As mentioned supra, Petitioner No.1 is highly educated and is working as Headmistress at Prachin Global School, Patancheru; the Petitioners have 14 been residing separately from the family of Accused No.1 for the past 35 years. 28. Considering the omnibus nature of allegations leveled against the Petitioners by Respondent No.2 in her sworn statement made before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gannavaram, no case is made out for taking further action against the Petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A of „the I.P.C.,‟ or under any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The proceedings on the file of the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate against the Petitioners are nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, such proceedings are liable to be quashed. 29. The Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, are hereby quashed against Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 11.02.2026 PRA 15 185 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12751 of 2025 Date:11.02.2026 PRA