Criminal proceedings for trespass and intimidation cannot be maintained against a spouse when the alleged acts are rooted in efforts to resolve matrimonial disputes and lack the requisite criminal intent, as such prosecution constitutes an abuse of the court process.

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to order to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.225 of 2016 the file of the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hindupur, Anantapur District and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner in C.C. No.225 of 2016 on the file of the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hindupur, Anantapur District, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition; and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. T B L MURTHY

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. SURESH BABU CHAPALA

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

3. LEGAL AID

The Court made the following:

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the petitioner/Accused, to quash the charge sheet in Calendar Case No.225 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, arising out of a case in Crime No.110 of 2016 of Hindupur I Town Police Station, Anantapuramu, registered against the petitioner/Accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’).

2. The allegations levelled as against the petitioner/accused in the charge sheet, in brief, are that, the marriage of respondent No.2/de facto complainant with the petitioner/accused was solemnized in the year 2006 and they both led marital life for a period of 2½ years, and later disputes cropped up between them, on the pretext that the petitioner/accused was alleged to have harassed and ill-treated the respondent No.2/de facto complainant; that several mediations held proved futile; that at about seven years prior to the subject incident, the petitioner/accused was alleged to have discarded the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and she started residing with her parents at Hanumakonda. The respondent No.2/de facto complainant was said to have filed O.P.No.791 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner/accused, seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage performed with petitioner/accused and the same is pending. The petitioner/accused also said to have filed Maintenance Case No.85 of 2010 on the file of the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court, concerned for grant of maintenance and the same is also pending.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would contend that the present case was foisted erroneously at the instance of respondent No.2/de facto complainant only to harass the petitioner/accused. According to learned counsel, the petitioner/accused made an attempt to join with her husband i.e. respondent No.2/de facto complainant and there is no mens rea or criminal intention attributable to the petitioner/accused to attract the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of IPC. Learned counsel would further contend that prima facie no case was made over as against the petitioner/accused.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/de facto complainant would contend that the petitioner/accused used to harass the resp