2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20900
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7699/2021 Between:
1. INAGANTI NAGARAJU, S/O. SANKARA BABU, AGE 30 YEARS, R/O.
D.NO.3-173, MUDRAGADAVARI STREET, SANTHANUTHALAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
2. GOLLAPUDI @ INAGANTI SUJATHA, W/O. GOLLAPUDI SURESH VENKATA SURESH BABU, AGE 37 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.24-5-10, KOWUR ROAD, KANDUKURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISHA WOMEN POLICE STATION, NELLORE, S.P.S.R.
NELLORE DISTRICT.
2. KANDUKURU JHANSI, W/O. INAGANTI SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O.OLD BITRAGUNTA VILLAGE, BOGOLU MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [APHC010523122021] has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5, seeking in short „Cr.P.C‟
Code, 18602, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,19613
2. The factual background leading to filing of this Petition:
a) On 10.08.2017, the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 was performed as per the Hindu rites and caste customs.
b) At the time of marriage, on the demand of all the Accused, the parents of Respondent No.2 had given cash of Rs.6.00 lakhs, 18 sovereigns of gold ornaments towards dowry and Rs.2.00 lakhs towards Adapaduchu Katnam.
c) After the marriage, Respondent No.2 joined Accused No.1 at Santhanuthalapadu Village, Prakasam District and subsequently, they both put up family at Hyderabad, as they both were working there.
d) Accused No.1 used to harass Respondent No.2 both mentally and physically stating that she brought a meager dowry and used to demand her to sell Ac.1.00 cents of agricultural land.
e) When Respondent No.2 informed the same to Accused Nos.2 to 5, they also used to support Accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 5 used to visit the house of Respondent No.2 and harass her by joining with Accused No.1.
f) During wedlock, Respondent No.2 gave birth to a male child on
27.08.2018.
g) Even after delivery of the child, Accused refused to take
2 in short „I.P.C.‟
in short „D.P.Act‟
Respondent No.2 and her child to the matrimonial home by demanding to bring the amount by selling away Ac.1.00 cents of the land and subsequently Accused No.1 filed a divorce petition in O.P.670 of 2019 on the file of Family Court at Secunderabad.
h) Based on the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.37 of 2020 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act was registered and after completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet which was numbered as C.C.No.1393 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore. Seeking quashment of the same, the present Crl.P. is filed. Grounds Sought for Quashment:
3. The said case is sought to be quashed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and
5 on the following grounds.
a. The Investigating Officer without conducting fair and proper investigation, and without giving opportunity to the Petitioners to submit the true facts, filed charge sheet by reiterating the contents of the complaint.
b. There are no specific allegations against the Petitioners and they have been residing far away from the place of offence.
c. The learned Magistrate gravely erred in taking cognizance of the offences against the Petitioners and failed to see that the present complaint has been lodged after receipt of notice in F.C.O.P.670 of 2019.
d. The learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance against the Petitioners based on the omnibus allegations without there being any specific allegations against them.
4. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Ms.D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 would submit that the Petitioners herein are the brother and sister of Accused No.1. It is submitted that Accused No.4 is a private employee and Accused No.5 is the married sister, who is working as a Conductor in RTC. Learned counsel would submit that Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 stay in Prakasam District, whereas, Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 used to reside at Hyderabad. It is submitted that the only allegation against the Petitioners is that they have supported Accused No.1 and except that, no specific allegations were made against t