APHC010204462021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3445/2021 Between:

R Surya Prakash ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. P RAJESH BABU

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.561 of 2020 on the file of the Gokavaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban in so far as the petitioner/accused No.9 is concerned.

2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.9 and the 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The 2^nd respondent herein has filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Gokavaram stating that she is a resident of Rampayerrampalem village, Gokavaram mandal and that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 19.06.2019 at Annavaram Satyanarayanaswami Devasthanam, for which the family of the 2^nd respondent paid a total of Rs.12,50,000/- towards dowry. When the 2^nd respondent was taken to her in-laws’ house, the 1 ^st accused and his relatives abused the 2^nd respondent with filthy language stating that she belongs to lower caste and that they would have got Rs.50,00,000/- if the 1^st accused had married another girl. They have also beat the 2^nd respondent with legs on stomach, pulled her by holding hair and further demanded to bring Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry and driven the 2^nd respondent out of the house causing mental harassment. Thereafter, the 1^st accused took the 2^nd respondent to the house of the petitioner herein wherein, both the 1^st accused and the petitioner herein are alleged to have abused the 2^nd respondent in filthy language; that the petitioner herein took the signature of the 2^nd respondent on a blank sheet and harassed both physically and mentally and have instigated the 2^nd respondent to commit suicide. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent started residing in her paternal home, during which the 1^st accused has demanded Rs.15,00,000/- as additional dowry. As all the in-laws of the 2^nd respondent and other relatives including the petitioner herein have harassed the 2^nd respondent, she requested to take action against all the accused. Upon receiving the said compliant of the 2^nd respondent, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.561 of 2020 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 21.12.2020. Challenging the said FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the complaint and has sought quashment of the FIR on the ground that he is not in anyway related to accused No.1 or to the defacto complainant. He submits that the petitioner is just a friend of accused No.1 and as such, the prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC is not maintainable against him. The petitioner was roped into the criminal proceedings basing on omnibus allegations and with no specific instances of his involvement in the crime. In order to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC, there shall be harassment coercing the person to meet any unlawful demand for any property or any valuable security by the family members only. As the petitioner is not a family member of the 1^st accused, the provisions of Section 498 A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, are not attracted. Hence, requested to quash the present proceedings in FIR No.561 of 2020 on the file of Gokavaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would constitute offence punishable under S