Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Devarapalli Kalavathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 2026
APHC010637202025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12271/2025
Between:
1. DEVARAPALLI KALAVATHI, W/O.D.VICTOR BABU, FEMALE, AGED
54 YEARS,OCC PVT.EMLOYEE, R/O.H.NO. 10-32, NEAR
ELECTRICAL OFFICE,HARIJANAWADA, GANNAVARAM V 8I M,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTORTHROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMEN
POLICE STATION,VIJAYAWADA CITY HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI.GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. KALAPALA KAMALA PRIYA, W/O.DEVARAPALLI RAVI KIRAN LATE,
FEMALE, AGED 35 YEARS, OCCPVT.EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.35-7-
33, GIRIPURAM, NEW COLONY,BODDU SUNDARAM STREET,
VIJAYAWADA -10. KRISHNA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. B P RAJU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
3. LEGAL AID
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 against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.3031 of
2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vijayawada registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „the I.P.C‟).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Legal Aid
Counsel for Respondent No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
Perused the record.
3. Respondent No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner. The Petitioner
is the mother of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 is the husband of Respondent
No.2 and died on 09.04.2025 due to cardiac arrest.
4. Respondent No.2, on 08.02.2020, lodged a complaint against the
Petitioner and Accused No.1, which was registered as a case in Crime No.29
of 2020 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A of „the I.P.C‟.
The allegations against Accused No.1, who is now deceased, and the
Petitioner, being the mother-in-law of Respondent No.2, are that Accused
No.1 was addicted to vices, was irresponsible, and used to beat Respondent
No.2. It is further alleged that he maintained illicit relationships with other
women.
3
5. It is also alleged that the Petitioner, being the mother of Accused No.1,
did not show any responsibility in restraining him and neither admonished nor
corrected his behavior. The Respondent No.2 further alleged that the
Petitioner used to instigate Accused No.1 to assault her.
6. However, a careful reading of the complaint reveals that there is no
allegation that the Petitioner or her son ever demanded additional dowry.
There are no allegations of cruelty or harassment in connection with any
demand for dowry. Mere allegations of physical assault by Accused No.1 or
his alleged illicit relationships do not, by themselves, constitute “cruelty” within
the meaning of Section 498-A of „the I.P.C.,‟ in the absence of any dowry-
related harassment.
7. Further, there are no specific details as to the dates, time, or place of
the alleged acts of assault by Accused No.1, nor are there specific particulars
regarding the alleged instigation by the Petitioner. The FIR, as well as the
statements recorded by the Investigating Officer from Respondent No.2 and
other prosecution witnesses, do not disclose allegations sufficient to attract
the provisions of Section 498-A of „the I.P.C‟.
8. It is pertinent to note that the said decree was passed subsequent to the
registration of the FIR at the instance of Respondent No.2. Further, as stated
supra, the husband of Respondent No.2 (Accused No.1) died on 13.03.2025.
In view of the dissolution of marriage and the subsequent death of Accused
No.1, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, who is
only the mother-in-law of Respondent No.2, would serve no useful purpose.
4
9. In view of the fact that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner
would not attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of „the I.P.C.,‟
continuation of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate is nothing but
an abuse of the process of law.
10. In this regard, it is opposite to refer the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana1, wherein at paragraph No.6 it
is 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.”
11. 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.
12. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra 2 , 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 and1
(2018) 14 SCC 452
2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836
5make 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. In our view, only stating that
cruelty has been committed by the appellants herein due to some
reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC
being attracted. The next allegation regarding a specific incident
relating to the miscarriage being caused by the appellants herein has
also been discussed above. A bare perusal of the allegation and the
analysis of the same when compared with the statement of the Doctor
reveals that even if the allegations are accepted at the face value, it
would not prima facie make out a case against the present
appellants.”
13. Similarly, in Digambar supra it is observed that if the allegations in the
FIR or complaint, even when taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute
any offence, the High Court is justified in quashing the proceedings. In the
present case, the allegations do not disclose any specific instance of cruelty to
attract Section 498-A of „the IPC‟, and even the allegation regarding
miscarriage, when examined with the doctor‟s statement, does not make out a
prima facie case against the appellants.
14. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad3, at paragraph
No.12, held as under:
“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is
to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully.
But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume
serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal
case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned
here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties
lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.”
3
(2000) 3 SCC 693
6
15. In this manner, in G.V. Rao supra it is ruled that there has been a rise in
matrimonial disputes, where minor disagreements often escalate into serious
criminal cases, unnecessarily implicating elders who could have facilitated
reconciliation. Such litigation should not be encouraged, as prolonged court
battles consume years of the parties‟ lives instead of allowing them to
amicably resolve their differences.
16. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of
Telangana4, at paragraph No.27, held as under:
“27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal
case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a
well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is
often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family
when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete
evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for
criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to
prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid
unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present
case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of
Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in
the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein.
Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the
same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of
specific allegations made against each of them.”
17. Therefore, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra it is observed that a mere
reference to family members in matrimonial disputes, without specific
allegations of active involvement, cannot justify criminal prosecution, as courts
must guard against sweeping and generalized accusations. Where relatives
live separately and no specific role is attributed to them, implicating them
would amount to abuse of the process of law.
4
(2025) 3 SCC 735
7
18. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Boddu Rani v. State of Andhra
Pradesh5, at paragraph No.14, held as under:
“14. In the backdrop of the legal position discussed supra, it can be
clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial
matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present In the
contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the
Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual
reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into
account to sustain the accusations. Coming to the facts of the present
case, a fair look at the contents of the complaint and the charge
sheet, except making casual reference of names of A3 and A4 that
after giving birth to the female child, when they visited their house,
they used to join A1 to harass the wife, nothing is attributed in specific
against them. But coming to the case of A2, there are specific
allegations. In that view, it is tenable to quash the crime against A3
and A4 and not against A2.”
19. By relying on several judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the learned
Single Judge in Boddu Rani supra quashed the proceedings against Accused
Nos.3 and 4, who are relatives of the husband.
20. Upon a meticulous appraisal of the record and in light of the
authoritative pronouncements of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, this Court is
persuaded to hold that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner is
manifestly vague, omnibus, and bereft of any specific overt act. The factual
substratum, even when taken at face value, does not disclose the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 489-A read with 34 of „the
I.P.C.,‟ and Section 4 of „the D.P.Act‟. As observed in Digambar supra, when
the uncontroverted allegations fail to prima facie constitute an offence, the
High Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the
proceedings. The continuation of prosecution in such circumstances would
amount to a palpable abuse of process, resulting in miscarriage of justice, and
5
2025 SCC OnLine AP 183
8
therefore warrants interdiction under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.‟/Section 528
of „the BNSS.‟
21. Further, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the judicial caution
enunciated in K. Subba Rao supra and Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra,
wherein it was categorically held that distant relatives or family members
cannot be roped in on the basis of sweeping and generalized allegations
unsupported by concrete evidence. The present case epitomizes such
indiscriminate implication, where the respondent-wife‟s grievances, at best,
reveal matrimonial discord and incompatibility rather than criminal culpability.
In consonance with the dictum in G.V. Rao supra, the Court is duty-bound to
prevent the escalation of minor matrimonial skirmishes into protracted criminal
litigation that consumes the prime years of the parties.
22. Furthermore, a decree of divorce was granted by a competent Court in
F.C.O.P. No.365 of 2023 between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 on the
grounds of cruelty and desertion, by judgment and decree dated 26.02.2024
passed by the learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Family
Court Judge, Vijayawada. Accordingly, the marriage between Respondent
No.2 and the son of the Petitioner stood dissolved.
23. In this regard, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj6, wherein it is held that when
the marriage between the spouses has been dissolved by a decree of divorce
on the ground of mutual consent, the criminal proceedings for the offences
6
(Criminal Appeal No.741 of 2009 dated 10.12.2014)
9
punishable under Section 498-A of „the IPC‟ and Sections 3 and 4 of „the
D.P.Act‟ are liable to be quashed, as continuation of such proceedings would
amount to abuse of process of law.
24. This Court, in Criminal Petition No.5840 of 2024, dated 19.02.2026, has
also quashed the proceedings following the said judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex
Court. Hence, to secure the ends of justice and prevent the misuse of criminal
law, the proceedings in C.C.No.3031 of 2021 are liable to be quashed.
25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal
Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioner in C.C.No.3031
of 2021 (Crime No.29 of 2020 of Women Police Station, Vijayawada) pending
on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vijayawada, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 23.03.2026
KMS
10
90
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12271 of 2025
Date: 23.03.2026
KMS