APHC010480162021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7112/2021 Between:

1.CHEKATLA VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. SUBBARAO AGED 53 YEARS, CASTE- SETTIBALIJA DATTA ESTATE, VEMAGIRI VILLAGE, KADIYAM MANDAL

2.ARATLA MURALI KRISHNA,, S/O. APPARAO, AGED 55 YEARS, CASTE- PADMASALI, R/O. NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, SURYARAOPETA, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER DEVIPATNAM POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

2.AKIRI NAGAVARALAKSHMI, , W/O VENKANNABABU, D/O GUDUPU SATYANARAYANA @ GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, CASTE- KAPU, R/O GARLAMPADU VILLAGE, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.K VADITYACHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.P RAJESH BABU

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 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.,’) seeking to quash proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 & 5 in C.C.No.79 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.

3. The Petitioners, it is manifest, do not fall within the ambit of “relatives of the husband” as contemplated under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ They are admittedly mere acquaintances and friends of Accused No.1, who himself is the husband of Respondent No.2. A meticulous perusal of the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2, her statement recorded under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as well as the averments of the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, reveals that the allegations against the Petitioners are confined to the assertion that, being friends of Accused No.1, they allegedly instigated the in- laws of Respondent No.2 to subject her to quarrels, physical assault, and eventual expulsion from the matrimonial home.

4. The imputations levelled are omnibus in nature, devoid of specific particulars, and bereft of any concrete instances of overt acts attributable to the Petitioners. Though the charge-sheet purports to invoke Section 498-A read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ it is axiomatic that Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ by its very tenor and legislative intent, is restricted to the husband or his relatives. By no interpretative stretch can the provision be extended to encompass friends or unrelated third parties.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in U. Suvetha v. State1, at paragraph Nos.18 to 24 held as under:

“18. By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a “relative”. The word “relative” brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.

19. We may notice that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rajeti Laxmi v. State of A.P. [(2007) 1 DMC 797 (AP)] held as under: (DMC p. 798, para4)

“4. The entire reading of the charge-sheet and the statements of LWs 1 to 7, goes to show that it is nobody's case of the accusedortheprosecutionthatA-6istherelativeofhusbandof LW 1. She is only concubine of A-1 and having illicit intimacy with him. Therefore, in the absence of any averment in the charge-sheetorany statementthat sheis arelativeofA-1,Iam of the opinion that the offence under Section 498-A IPC does not attract to A-6. Even as per the dictionary meaning ‘relative’ means a person connected by blood or marriage or ‘a species related to another by common origin’. Simply because A-6 is having illicit intimacy with A-1, it