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) 16016

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRLP 6783/2022



APHC010451872022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 6783, 7064 AND 6830 OF 2022

Criminal Petition No.6783/2022:

Between:

1. VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. VISWANATHAN, AGED.

25 YEARS, OCCUPATION. STUDENT NO.18/8, SBI OFFICERS COLONY, RAZAK GARDEN ROAD, ARUNTAKKAM, CHENNAI -

600106

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATHI,

2. POKALA SABHANA, D/O POKALA ANJANEYULU .AGED.24 YEARS,

OCCUPATION.NIL GANTAPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DT,

ANDHRA PRADESH

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Criminal Petition No.7064 of 2022:

Between:

1. KRISHNA MURTHY VISWANATHAM, S/O. VISWANATHAN, AGED.57

YEARS, OCCUPATION. EMPLOYEE NO.18/8, SBI OFFICERS COLONY, RAZAK GARDEN ROAD, ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI -

600106 (FATHER OF AL)

2. VISWANADAN VIDYA,, W/O. VISWANATHAN, AGED.52 YEARS,

OCCUPATION. HOUSE WIFE NO.18/8, SBI OFFICERS COLONY, RAZAK GARDEN ROAD, ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600106

(MOTHER OF AL)

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATHI,

2. POKALA SABHANA, D/O POKALA ANJANEYULU AGED.24 YEARS,

OCCUPATION. NIL GANTAPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DT,

ANDHRA PRADESH

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Criminal Petition No.6830 of 2022:

Between:

1. KESAVARAJ PARTHIBHAN, S/O. KESAVARAJ, AGED. 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION. BUSINESS NO.17, RAZAK GARDEN ROAD, ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600110 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATHI, 2. POKALA SABHANA, D/O POKALA ANJANEYULU AGED.24 YEARS, OCCUPATION. NIL GANTAPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DT.

ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. THANDAVA YOGESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER

1. These instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 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 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19613 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.

for short „Cr.P.C‟

for short „IPC‟

for short „DP Act‟

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

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