SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11974

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J
Viswanathan Krishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos: 6783 | 7064 | 6830



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Thandava Yogesh
For the Respondents: Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor

The court affirmed that a transgender woman can file a complaint under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing that gender identity and rights must be recognized legally, independent of reproductive capacity.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Quashment of proceedings - Petitions filed by accused challenging their prosecution for alleged dowry harassment and cruelty - Court found that allegations against the accused were vague and unsupported by evidence - Court upheld the maintainability of the complaint by a transgender woman against her husband under Section 498-A, emphasizing the legal recognition of transgender rights - Proceedings quashed due to lack of a prima facie case against the accused. (Paras 7, 8, 30, 31)

(B) Legal Identity of Transgender Persons - Court affirmed that a trans woman has the right to lodge a complaint under IPC Section 498-A and the Dowry Prohibition Act, rejecting the notion that reproductive capability defines womanhood. (Paras 21, 22)

(C) Abuse of Process - The court cautioned against vague allegations in matrimonial disputes leading to unjust harassment of innocent family members. (Paras 25, 30)

Facts of the case:
The complainant, a transgender woman, lodged a complaint of dowry-related harassment against her husband and his family, following a marriage where dowry was allegedly given. After an investigation and charge sheet, the accused petitioned to quash the proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found the allegations against the accused did not constitute a prima facie case under the relevant IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, leading to quashment.

Issues: Whether the complaint by a transgender woman under IPC Section 498-A is maintainable; whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the identity and rights of transgender individuals must be recognized within the legal framework, asserting that complaints should not be dismissed based on preconceived notions of gender based on reproductive capacity.

Result: Criminal petitions allowed; proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties' arguments concerning legal standing. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis of transgender rights and legal definitions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 21)
4. recognition of transgender individuals in legal complaints. (Para 22)
5. court's observations on the merits of allegations. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. conclusion and order to quash proceedings. (Para 31)

COMMON ORDER:

1. These instant petitions under Section 4 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ^ for short‘Cr.PC’ have been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 and 4 respectively, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.585 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, for the offence punishable under Section 4 98-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ^ ^for short ‘ IPC ’ and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ^ for short ‘DP Act’ Since all these criminal petitions are seeking to quash the proceedings out of the same C.C., they are decided together by this common order.

Background leading to the filing of these Petitions

2. The case of Respondent No.2/Complainant, in brief, is as follows:

a. Respondent No.2 was originally a male and, having transitioned to female, has become a woman. While residing in Chennai, Respondent No.2 became acquainted with the Petitioner/Accused No.1, and their acquaintance developed into a romantic relationship. Despite being aware that Respondent No.2 is a transgender woman, Petitioner/Accused No.1 - continued the relationship with her. Upon learning about their affair, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 lodged complaints against her.

b. In January 2018, Petitioner/Accused No.1 informed her that he had convinced his parents about their relationship, and consequently, they began living together. On 11.01.2019, Respondent No.2 and Petitioner/Accused No.1 executed a Memorandum of Understanding and subsequently got married on 21.01.2019 at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. At the time of the marriage, the parents of Respondent No.2 gave an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to Petitioner/Accused No.1 as dowry, along with 25 sovereigns of gold, silver articles weighing 500 grams, and household items worth Rs.2,00,000/-.

c. After the marriage. Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 resided at her parents’ house in Ongole. They occasionally visited the house of Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Chennai. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 maintained cordial relations with Respondent No.2 and frequently communicated with her over the phone. Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 ■0% lived together until 11.03.2019. Thereafter, he went to his parents' house and did not return. When she tried to contact Accused No.1 his phone was switched off. When Respondent No.2 contacted Accused No.3, she replied via message stating that they had gone to Mumbai and that she would ask Accused No.1 to speak with Respondent No.2.

d. On 13.03.2019, when Respondent No.2 went to the house of the Petitioners, she discovered that Accused No.1 was present there. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 attempted to send Accused No.1 out of the country. On 27.04.2019, Respondent No.2 received a threatening message from Accused No.l’s phone, warning her to leave the place or face death. She also received vulgar messages. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 acted under the direction of Petitioner/Accused No.4. Therefore, she lodged a complaint against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, which was registered as Crime No.25 of 2019 at the Women Police Station, Ongole, for offences under Section 4 98- A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961.

e. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the Petitioners for the said offences, which was numbered as C.C. No.585 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole.

f.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top