APHC010666372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12751/2025 Between:

1. R AJANI NERSU,, W/O SRINIVASA RAO NERSU, AGED 51 YEARS, M.A, M. PHILL, B.ED, HEADMISTRESS AT PRACHIN GLOBAL SCHOOL, PATANCHERU. RESIDENT OF TYPE-IV ORDANANCE FACTORY. ESTATE, YEDDIIMAILARAM.- PHONE- 8985554945

2. A KSHIT N.R,, S/O SRINIVASA RAO N, AGED 25 YEARS, M.SC.

BUSINESS ANALYTICS, MASTER'S STUDENT OF NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY, NEW CASTLE, UNITED KINGDOM. RESIDENT OF TYPE-IV ORDANANCE FACTORY. ESTATE, YEDDURNAILARAM PHONE- 8985554945 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. S TATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UNGUTURU P.S., KRISHNA DISTRICT. REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HONBLE HIGH GOUT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. M EKALA PAVANI, W/O ANJANEYULU, 39 YRS, C/YADAVA, HOUSE WIFE, MANIKONDA, UNGUTURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

3. M EKALA ANJANEYURU, S/O SATYANARAYANA, 47 YRS, G/YADAVA, APBH COLONY, MOULALI, HYDERABAD-.

4. M EKALA RANGAYANAKAMMA, WM SATYANARAYANA, 69 YRS, C/YADAVA, AP BH COLONYI MOULALI, HYDERABAD.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. P LAKSHMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. HARI KRISHNA TATA

2. 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 „the Cr.P.C.,‟)/Section 528 of the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟)seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3&4 in C.C.No.4 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada (for brevity, „the learned Trial Court‟).

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

3. Mr. P. Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.3 is the sister-in-law of Respondent No.2, and Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 is the son of Petitioner No.1. The marriage between Petitioner No.1, Rajani Nersu, and her husband Srinivasa Rao was performed about 35 years ago, and ever since, she has been residing with her husband in Hyderabad. Her husband has been working in the Defence Ordnance Factory, Hyderabad. Petitioner No.2 is presently pursuing his Master‟s course in Business Analytics at Northumbria University, Newcastle, United Kingdom. There are no references to the date, time, or place of the alleged offences attributed against the Petitioners. It is urged that the Petitioners had nothing to do with the alleged harassment against Respondent No.2, and continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law.

4. Per contra, Sri Hari Krishna Tata, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, submits that Respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment not only by Accused Nos.1 and 2 but also by the Petitioners. Specific allegations were made against the Petitioners, but later the police obtained her signature while deleting their names from the charge sheet. She inadvertently signed the “no objection” memo. It is contended that the Petitioners played a major role in the harassment, as they used to visit Accused No.1‟s house every Saturday and Sunday, abuse Respondent No.2 and her daughter, and sometimes Petitioner No.2 attempted to beat them, claiming they were not family members of Accused No.1. It is urged that the petition be dismissed as triable issues exist between them.

5. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the final report was filed in favour of the Petitioners, stating that they had not committed any offence. Respondent No.2 unnecessarily dragged them into litigation without specific instances of date, time, or place of alleged offences.

It is prayed that appropriate orders be passed.

6. Thoughtful conside