APHC010564352024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9070/2024 Between:

1. Y ENNAPUSA ANITHA @ YAMMANURU ANITHA, W/O.V.KIRAN KUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.4-7-26-A, SBI COLONY, PULIVENDULA TOWN YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

2. Y ENNAPUSA KIRAN KUMAR REDDY, , S/O.PRABHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.4-7-26-A, SBI COLONY, PULIVENDULA TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

2. P ELLURU HARSHITHA, D/O.P.SUDHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT

27 YEARS, R/O.KURUGONDA VILLAGE, OZILI MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY

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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.326 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Naidupeta, Tirupati District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. The petitioner No.1 is shown as Accused No.3, who is the sister-in-law of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 is shown as Accused No. 4 and he is the husband of petitioner No. 1. Thus, the petitioners are relatives of the husband of respondent No. 2. It is an admitted fact that the husband of respondent No. 2 is no more, as he died on 10.03.2023. The respondent No. 2 has lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 07.10.2023, i.e., after the death of her husband.

4. In this regard, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, 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.

5. Thus, in K. Subba Rao supra it held that criminal proceedings are ordinarily not interfered with at the interlocutory stage unless there is abuse of process; however, the Court may intervene to secure the ends of justice. In matrimonial and dowry-related cases, distant relatives should not be implicated on omnibus allegations without specific instances of their involvement.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836, at paragraph Nos.29 & 30, held as under:

29. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that when the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.

30. In the present case also, as discussed above, the facts when taken at face value, do not reveal any specific instance of cruelty committed by the appellants herein. I