Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Perumalla Srividya And Another vs Ch.Bhajanlal And Ors on 23 March, 2026
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010534122023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8347 OF 2023
Between:
Perumalla Srividya and another ...PETITIONERS/A4 and A5
AND
The State of Andhra
Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioners/A4 & A5:
1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondents/Complainant(S):
1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has
been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.113 of 2022 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool district, against the petitioners herein/A4
and A5.
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 20232
2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners
herein/A4 and A5 and others for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. It is alleged that the marriage between the de
facto complainant and son of A1 namely Chandra Sekhar, was
performed in the year 2008, and at the time of marriage, dowry
of Rs.75,000/-, 225 Grams of gold and 2 ½ Kgs Silver were
given as dowry. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a
male child. Subsequently, due to unbearable harassment made
by her husband at the instigation of her in-laws, the de facto
complainant went to her parental house in the year 2012 and
started residing therein. While so, in the year 2019, husband of
the de facto complainant died. Thereafter, A1 to A7 are alleged
to have assured the de facto complainant to return the dowry
amount and articles as well as share of her husband in the
property, but in vain. When the de facto complainant, along with
other witnesses, went to the house of her in-laws and demanded
the dowry articles and her husband‟s share in the property, the
accused abused them in filthy language and threatened with dire
consequences. On 19.03.2021, basing on the report of the de
facto complainant, a case in Crime No.93 of 2021 of Jupadu
Bungalow Police Station is registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and
Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the
police filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file as CC
No.113 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Nandikotkur.
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 2023
3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A4 and A5 submits
that the petitioners/A4 and A5 are residing separately and they
are no way connected with the matrimonial life of the de facto
complainant. He submits that the de facto complainant foisted
the above case against the petitioners herein and others with a
view to harass them on the ground that her husband‟s share in
the property was not given to her. He further submits that
except making omnibus allegations, no specific accusations
have been made against the petitioners/A4 and A5 that they are
alleged to have harassed the de facto complainant and that
there is no material to connect the petitioners/A4 and A5 to the
alleged crime.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that after the death of her husband when the de facto
complainant along with others (LWs.2 to 5) went to her in-laws‟
house and demanded for return of dowry articles and her
husband‟s share in the property, the accused abused them in
filthy language and threatened with dire consequences, and
disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the present
proceedings.
5. Heard. Perused the record.
6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent
abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under
the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also
conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 2023
4
proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that
the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the
judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs.
Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.1, wherein the Apex Court held,
“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused;
1
AIR 1992 SC 604
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 2023
5
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155 (2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or ‘complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155 (2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 2023
6
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
7. 1st petitioner herein/A4 is none other than the sister of the
deceased husband of the de facto complainant and 2nd petitioner
herein/A5 is the husband of 1st petitioner herein/A4. A perusal of
the contents of the charge sheet goes to show that after the
death of her husband, when her husband‟s share in the property
has not been given to her, the de facto complainant resorted in
filing the present case against the petitioners herein and others
alleging that they threatened her with dire consequences. The
material on record goes to show that except making omnibus
allegations against all the accused, no specific accusation has
been made against the petitioners/A4 and A5 that they are
alleged to have harassed the de facto complainant.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on a decision in
Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand & another2,
wherein it was held thus: (paragraphs 30 to 34).
“30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately
matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All
the courts in our country including this Court are flooded
with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates
discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of
people of the society.
31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases
emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code which
reads as under:
“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.–Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such2
(2010) 7 SCC 667
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 20237
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, „cruelty‟
means–
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these
complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of
the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
We come across a large number of such complaints which
are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At
the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine
cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious
concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre
of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure
that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be
reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the
complaints are filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong
to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and
should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a
basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to
help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that
human problem. They must discharge their duties to the
best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and
tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of
the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not
lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualised
by the complainant that such complaint can lead to
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 2023
8
insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the
complainant, accused and his close relations.”
9. He also relied on a decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another,3 wherein it was held thus: (paragraphs 11 and 12).
“11. The appellants are brother-in-law and mother-inlaw
respectively of the deceased. A perusal of the complaint
filed by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which a crime was
registered, does not indicate any specific allegations by
disclosing the involvement of the appellants. It is the
specific case of the 1st appellant that he was working as a
cashier in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad branch, which is at
about 40 kms from Gorakhpur. The alleged incident was on
24.07.2018 at about 8 p.m. When the investigation was
pending, the 1st appellant has filed affidavit before Senior
Superintendent of Police on 08.08.2018, giving his
employment details and stated that he was falsely
implicated. It was his specific case that during the relevant
time, he was working at ICICI Bank, Khalilabad branch,
Gorakhpur and his mother was also staying with him. The
Branch Manager has endorsed his presence in the branch,
showing in-time at 09 : 49 a.m. and out-time at 06 : 25 p.m.
Even in the statement of 2nd respondent recorded by the
police and also in the final report filed under Section 173(2)
of Cr.P.C., except omnibus and vague allegations, there is
no specific allegation against the appellants to show their
involvement for the offences alleged. This Court, time and
again, has noticed making the family members of husband
as accused by making casual reference to them in
matrimonial disputes. Learned senior counsel for the
appellants, in support of her case, placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh1. In the aforesaid case,
this Court in identical circumstances, has quashed the
proceedings by observing that family members of husband
were shown as accused by making casual reference to
them. In the very same judgment, it is held that a large
number of family members are shown in the FIR by
casually mentioning their names and the contents do not
disclose their active involvement, as such, taking3
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 20239
cognizance of the matter against them was not justified. It
is further held that taking cognizance in such type of cases
results in abuse of judicial process. Paras 18 and 25 of the
said judgment, which are relevant for the purpose of this
case, read as under:
“18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court
in Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald
allegations made against the sister-in-law by the
complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of
the informant to rope in as many of the
husband’s relatives as possible. It was held that
neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished
the legal basis for the Magistrate to take
cognizance of the offences alleged against the
appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to
hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR
and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of
the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406
IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
were made against the married sister of the
complainant’s husband who was undisputedly
not living with the family of the complainant’s
husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court
were pleased to hold that the High Court ought
not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the
ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings
against the appellants were quashed and the
appeal was allowed.
25. However, we deem it appropriate to add
by way of caution that we may not be
misunderstood so as to infer that even if there
are allegations of overt act indicating the
complicity of the members of the family named
in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be
unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by
highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does
not disclose specific allegation against the
accused more so against the co-accused
specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial
bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal
and judicial process to mechanically send the
named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial
unless of course the FIR discloses specific
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 2023
10
allegations which would persuade the court to
take cognizance of the offence alleged against
the relatives of the main accused who are prima
facie not found to have indulged in physical and
mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the
well-settled principle laid down in cases too
numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not
disclose the commission of an offence, the court
would be justified in quashing the proceedings
preventing the abuse of process of law.
Simultaneously, the courts are expected to
adopt a cautious approach in matters of
quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial
disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses
commission of an offence by the relatives of the
principal accused or the FIR prima facie
discloses a case of overimplication by involving
the entire family of the accused at the instance
of the complainant, who is out to settle her
scores arising out of the teething problem or
skirmish of domestic bickering while settling
down in her new matrimonial surrounding.”
12. From a perusal of the complaint filed by the
2nd respondent and the final report filed by the police under
Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., We are of the view that the
aforesaid judgment fully supports the case of the
appellants. Even in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 and 2, it is not disputed that the
1st appellant was working in ICICI Bank at Khalilabad
branch, but merely stated that there was a possibility to
reach Gorakhpur by 8 p.m. Though there is an allegation of
causing injuries, there are no other external injuries noticed
in the postmortem certificate, except the single ante-
mortem injury i.e. ligature mark around the neck, and the
cause of death is shown as asphyxia. Having regard to the
case of the appellants and the material placed on record,
we are of the considered view that except vague and bald
allegations against the appellants, there are no specific
allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to
prosecute them for the offences alleged. In view of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra1,
which squarely applies to the case of the appellants, we
are of the view that it is a fit case to quash the
proceedings.”
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 2023
11
10. He also placed reliance on a decision in Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam Vs State Of Bihar4, wherein it was held as
follows :
“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse
of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes, without analysing the long term
ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well
as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result
in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-
laws of the husband when no prima facie case is
made out against them.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific
role attributed to the accused appellants, it would
be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through
the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant‟s husband are forced
to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this
court in varied instances, that a criminal trial
leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe
scars upon the accused, and such an exercise
must therefore be discouraged.”
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners/A4 and A5 is that an omnibus accusation has been
made against all the accused and no specific overt-act has been
attributed against the petitioners/A4 and A5. He further
4
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 2023
12
submitted that the petitioners/A4 and A5 are residing separately
and they are nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the de
facto complainant. Except the vague and bald allegations made
against them that they along with other accused harassed the de
facto complainant both physically and mentally, there is no other
accusation made against the petitioners/A4 and A5.
12. Time and again, the Hon‟ble Apex Court and this court
categorically held that a tendency has been developed for roping
in all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in
order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the
husband and the accusations against the relatives of the
husband, if omnibus in nature, have to be curtailed at the
threshold. All the accusations that are made against the
petitioners/A4 and A5 are either vague or general in nature. No
specific instances have been mentioned in the report. The
allegations, if any, in the charge sheet would not come within the
definition of „cruelty‟ as defined under Section 498A IPC. Even
accepting the entire accusations to be true, no offence under
Section 498-A IPC would be attracted against the petitioners/A4
and A5 for the reason that no specific accusations have been
made against them that they harassed the de facto complainant.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against
the petitioners/A4 and A5 would amount to abuse of process of
Court. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that no
specific accusation has been made as against the petitioners/A4
and A5 attracting the offences alleged and since the petitioners
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 2023
13
are residing separately, continuation of the impugned
proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of
process of Court, and on that ground alone, this Court is inclined
to quash the impugned proceedings.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed
and the proceedings in C.C. No.113 of 2022 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, Kurnool
district, are hereby quashed as against the petitioners herein/A4
and A5.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if
any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_______________________
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J
Date:23.03.2026
Nsr
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.8347 of 2023
14
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.8347 of 2023
Date:23.03.2026
Nsr
