APHC010586862024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9478/2024 Between:

Shaik Baji and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. BILAAL AHMED SYED Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “BNSS”), seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C. No.78 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section

498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity “IPC”).

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

3. The petitioners were arraigned as Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the above calendar case. Petitioner No.1 is the elder brother of Accused No.1, and Petitioner No.2 is the wife of Petitioner No.1. The averments in the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, the statements recorded under Section 161 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ and the contents of the charge sheet disclose that the husband of Respondent No.2 allegedly used to harass her due to his vices, including consumption of alcohol, maintaining illicit relationships with several persons, and neglecting the family and children. In this context, the only allegation made against the petitioners, who are the elder brother-in-law and sister-in- law of Respondent No.2, is that they supported the husband of Respondent No.2.

4. Except for this bald and sweeping allegation, there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. No specific instances, dates, or overt acts have been mentioned either in the complaint or in the statements recorded under Section 161 of „the Cr.P.C‟. The sole allegation against the petitioners is that they supported Accused No.1, the husband of Respondent No.2. It is not even the case of Respondent No.2 that the petitioners abetted Accused No.1 in committing any of the alleged offences. Thus, only omnibus and general allegations have been made against the petitioners.

5. In the absence of specific allegations, it would be difficult even for the learned Magistrate to frame charges against the petitioners, inasmuch as Section 212 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ mandates that the charge shall contain particulars as to the time, place, and the person against whom the offence was committed. Bald and vague allegations without detailing specific instances would not serve any purpose for the prosecution.

6. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners before the learned Trial Court amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Respondent No.2, in order to take vengeance against her husband, appears to have unnecessarily implicated the petitioners in the present case. The respondent No.2 has attempted to use the present criminal proceedings as a tool to settle personal scores with her husband by roping in the petitioners. Such misuse of criminal law cannot be permitted, and the law does not countenance the abuse of criminal proceedings in this manner

7. 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.