APHC010122472024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1671/2024 Between:

Burle Venkateswarlu and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. Y V S S DHARANEESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

2. C SUBODH 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 Petitioners/Accused in C.C.No.2420 of 2019 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, (for brevity ‘the D.P. Act’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. The Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is father-in-law of the 2^nd respondent died on 06.05.2025. Hence, the petition against the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is abated.

4. The petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the 2^nd respondent. She is aged about 66 years. The Petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law of the 2^nd respondent.

5. As seen from the averments of the FIR, the statements recorded by the investigating officer of the 2^nd respondent and other prosecution witnesses as per the averments of the charge sheet there are no specific overt acts attributed against petitioner mentioning that the date, time and place of the alleged offence. Even it would be difficult for the learned Trial Court to frame charges without there being any specific instances with date, time and place. If a charge is framed sans the above particulars the charge is a defective one because it disables the accused/petitioners to prove his innocence.

6. The 2^nd respondent has de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners and other accused which was registered as a case in Crime No.135 of 2018 of Balajinagar Police Station, Nellore under Sections

498-A, 315 read with 511 and 120(B) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P.Act’.

7. The police after thorough investigation deleted the Sections 315 read with 511 and 120(B) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ from the charge sheet. The charge sheet filed only for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P Act’.

8. The learned Magistrate took cognizance by order dated 18.09.2019 observing that no prima facie case was made out against the Accused No.5 along with Accused Nos.1 to 4. Therefore, the learned Magistrate dismissed the private complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P Act’. The allegations sans any material particulars.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana¹, 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. 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.”

10. Thus, in K. Subba Rao supra it held that criminal proceedings are ordinarily not interfered with at the interlo