APHC010479532021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7114/2021 Between:

1. P ULLETIKURTHI SURYA KUMARI, W/O AMMAIAH CHARI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, CASTE, KAMSALI, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O 76- 13-250, JOJINAGAR, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT.

2. P ULLETIKURTHI JAYASHANKAR NAGENDRA, S/O AMMAIAH CHARI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, CASTE KAMSALI, OCC. CATERING SUPERVISOR, R/O 43-147-18, AJITHSINGH NAGAR, PEOPLE ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. P ULLETIKURTHI SAILAKSHMI, W/O BHUVANA CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, CASTE, KAMSALI, R/O D.NO. 22-73-8/1, I TOWN AREA, OBATRAJUVARI VEEDHI, NEAR KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI TEMPLE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. P A SESHU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

2. KURAVATI LENIN BABU 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 BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’)seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 in C.C.No.2656 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam(for brevity, ‘the learned Trial Court’).

2. Notice to Respondent No.2 was sent, and a memo to that effect has been filed. There is no representation for Respondent No.2. Hence, a learned legal aid counsel is appointed to argue the case on behalf of Respondent No.2, for the ends of justice as no prejudice is caused to Respondent No.2. Hence, Mr.Lenin Babu, learned counsel, is appointed as learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2 in this case. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue necessary proceedings in this regard.

3. Heard learned counsel for Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the record.

4. Mr. P. Anand Seshu, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is the mother in law of Respondent No.2, and Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 is the brother i‑n l‑aw. The Petitioners have been residing separately in Vijayawada, away ‑ fr‑om the matrimonial home of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2, and had no role in their day to day affairs. There are no specific references to the date, time, or place ‑of ‑any alleged offences attributed to them. The marriage itself was performed with pooled contributions from well wishers due to the poverty of Respondent No.2’s family, and no dowry ‑ was ever given. Hence, the question of demanding additional dowry does not arise. The allegations in the complaint and charge sheet are vague, omnibus, and motivated, and continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law.

5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that Respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment not only by Accused No.1 but also by the Petitioners. It is contended that specific allegations were made against them, and though they reside separately, they frequently visited the matrimonial home, abused Respondent No.2 and her daughter, and even attempted physical assault.

6. Mr.Lenin Babu, learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2, argued on the same lines as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, supporting the allegations of harassment and opposing the quash petition.

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

8. In the light of the case of the pr