Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Dr G Samyuktha vs Ch.Bhajanlal And Ors on 31 March, 2026
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010652542023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10058/2023
Between:
1. DR G SAMYUKTHA, W/O DR. NARENDRA KUMAR JAKKA,
AGED 44 YEARS, OCC NIL, D.NO. 1-8-183,
BALASAMUDRAM, HANUMAKONDA, WARANGAL
DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. THROUGH PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT
AMARAVATI.
2. DR NARENDRA KUMAR JAKKA, S/O J. RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED 45 YEARS, OCC GENERAL PHYSICIAN AND
CARDIOLOGIST, 26-4-864/G2, NEAR SREENIVASA
THEATRE ROAD, SRI BALAJI NAGAR, HINDUPUR - 515
201, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
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
2
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
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:
3
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
ORDER
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
4
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
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.
(b) While so, on 19.05.2016 at about 8.00 a.m. the
petitioner/accused was alleged to have trespassed into the house of
respondent No.2/de facto complainant, situated at Sreenivasa
Theatre road, Hindupur Town and was alleged to have threatened
him with dire consequences to withdraw the divorce OP; that again,
on the same day at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioner/accused was
alleged to have trespassed into Pranavi Heart Care Centre, run by
the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, and threatened him with
dire consequences, to withdraw the divorce OP filed by him, in the
presence of patients and caused obstruction to respondent No.2/
de facto complainant in discharging his legitimate duty. L.W2/
B.Manjula, L.W3/M.Gayathri and L.W4/B.Vijay Kumar are the
eyewitnesses to the said incident. The incident was reported to
police on 23.05.2016 and the same was registered as a case in
5
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
Crime No.110 of 2016 of Hindupur I Town Police Station,
Anantapuramu, for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and
506 of IPC and investigation into. After completion of investigation,
L.W5/B.T.Venkateswarlu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur I Town
Police Station filed charge sheet against the petitioner/accused.
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 respondent No.2/de facto complainant and left the
conjugal home without there being any reason, and on that, the
respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed O.P.No.791 of 2013 on
the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad for decree
6
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
of divorce and due to those matrimonial disputes, the petitioner/
accused trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/de facto
complainant at 8.00 a.m. on 19.05.2016 and again trespassed into
the private clinic run by respondent No.2/de facto complainant at
11.00 a.m. on the same day for the second time and threatened him
with dire consequences to withdraw the divorce OP filed by the
respondent No.2/de facto complainant. The said offence was
witnessed by the staff, working in the clinic and there is prima facie
case is made out as against the petitioner/accused. Hence, it is
prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing
respondent No.1/State reiterates the argument of learned counsel
for respondent No.2/de facto complainant and prays the Court to
dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused,
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State and
learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Perused
the entire material available on record.
7. The offences that are alleged as against the petitioner/
accused are punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of IPC. If any
of the acts to interfere with another’s peaceful enjoyment of
7
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
property, either movable or immovable, such acts amount to
trespass. If trespass is committed without criminal intention, it is
dealt with under the law of torts. But, if trespass is committed with
the criminal intention to cause harm to anyone, then it is criminal
trespass. According to Section 441 of IPC, criminal trespass is
committed, if a person unlawfully enters or, if lawfully entered,
remains there unlawfully intending to commit an offence or to
intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such
property. It is not necessary that the annoyance resulting from
trespass be instantaneous, it may be subsequent.
8. The essential ingredients of the offence punishable
under Section 506 of IPC are that the accused threatened someone
with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person,
reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested
and the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of
offence and to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not
legally bound to do.
9. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of
this Court under Section 482 CrPC 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
8
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal 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 Hon’ble Apex
Court held as under:
“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;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not1
AIR 1992 SC 604
9
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023disclose 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 the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
10. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the allegations in
the FIR/charge sheet, even if they are taken at their face value and
10
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the petitioner/accused.
11. Indisputably, petitioner/accused and respondent
No.2/de facto complainant are wife and husband and there were
matrimonial disputes pending between them. The allegations
levelled against the petitioner/accused in the charge sheet filed in
Calendar Case No.225 of 2016 by the Investigating Officer are that
the respondent No.2/de facto complainant was meted out cruelty in
the hands of petitioner/accused, and about seven years prior to the
date of incident of the alleged subject crime, the petitioner/accused
was alleged to have left the matrimonial home and as such, the
respondent No.2/de facto complainant constrained to file
O.P.No.791 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judge, Additional
Family Court, Hyderabad.
12. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that
the petitioner/accused filed copy of Common Order passed in
O.P.Nos.791 of 2013 and 1721 of 2015 by the learned Judge,
Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. As stated in the preceding
paragraphs, O.P.No.791 of 2013 was filed by the respondent No.2/
de facto complainant under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, seeking decree of divorce. On the other hand,
11
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
O.P.No.1721 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner/accused under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the relief of restitution
of conjugal rights. Vide Common Order dated 28.08.2017, the
learned Judge held that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant
failed to establish that the petitioner/accused herein wilfully
deserted him and thereby, dismissed the O.P.No.791 of 2013 filed
by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and consequently,
allowed the O.P.No.1721 of 2015 filed by the petitioner/accused
herein and directed the respondent No.2/de facto complainant
herein to take the petitioner/accused along with her daughter into
his company within one month from the date of the said common
order and lead conjugal life.
13. A perusal of the contents of the report lodged by the
respondent No.2/de facto complainant goes to show that on
19.05.2016 at about 8.00 a.m., the petitioner/accused was alleged
to illegally trespassed into the house of respondent No.2/de facto
complainant and quarrelled with him. The contents of the report
further goes to show that again on the same day at about 11.00
a.m., the petitioner/accused was alleged to have illegally trespassed
into the clinic, run by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant,
and alleged to have abused him severely in the presence of
12
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
patients and obstructed his duties and was also alleged to have
threatened the respondent No.2/de facto complainant with dire
consequences to withdraw the divorce case filed by him.
14. A perusal of the contents of the counter filed by the
petitioner/accused in O.P.No.791 of 2013 on the file of the learned
Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, goes to show that the
petitioner/accused acceded that on 19.05.2016 she along with her
daughter went to the house and clinic of respondent No.2/de facto
complainant out of anxiety, as her daughter was asking about her
father, but the respondent No.2/de facto complainant influenced the
local police and got registered the crime against the petitioner/
accused as if she criminally trespassed into the clinic and
threatened him with dire consequences.
15. The learned Judge, Additional Family Court,
Hyderabad observed that P.W1, in O.P.No.791 of 2013, who is
respondent No.2/de facto complainant herein, in his cross-
examination, refused to take the petitioner/accused herein and his
daughter into his fold by stating that he lost love and affection
towards them and in turn, the petitioner/accused expressed her
willingness to join the company of respondent No.2/de facto
complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner/accused filed O.P.No.1721
13
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
of 2015 on the file of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court,
Hyderabad for restitution of conjugal rights. Though, the respondent
No.2/de facto complainant is reluctant to take his wife i.e.
petitioner/accused and his daughter into his conjugal fold and filed
OP seeking for decree of divorce, the petitioner/accused with a view
to resume her conjugal life with respondent No.2/de facto
complainant having regard to the future of her daughter, appears to
have taken a step by going into the clinic run by the respondent
No.2/de facto complainant to have a word with her husband in
regard to their matrimonial issue and such act done by the
petitioner/accused cannot be termed as criminal trespass. Indeed,
as per the evidence of petitioner/accused as R.W1, in OP Nos.791
of 2013 and 1721 of 2015, she acceded that on 19.05.2016 she
along with her daughter went to the house and clinic of respondent
No.2/de facto complainant out of anxiety as her daughter was
asking about her father, who is none other than the respondent
No.2/de facto complainant. Having regard to the life and future of
her daughter, to show the respondent No.2/de facto complainant to
her daughter, it is quite natural for the petitioner/accused to go to
the house and clinic of the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, it
would not amount to criminal trespass by the petitioner/accused.
Furthermore, it was alleged that the petitioner/accused threatened
14
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
the respondent No.2/de facto complainant with dire consequences
and abused him in filthy language. Prima facie there is no material
on record to show as to what are the words spoken to, by the
petitioner/accused threatening the respondent No.2/de facto
complainant. Though, it was alleged that the petitioner/accused
threatened the respondent No.2/de facto complainant to withdraw
the divorce OP filed by him, as discussed in the preceding
paragraph, to resume the conjugal life with respondent No.2/
de facto complainant might have had a wordy altercation with her
husband i.e. petitioner/accused, and merely because the petitioner/
accused used such words, it does not amount to threatening the
respondent No.2/de facto complainant to do away with his life, for
the reason that, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant is none
other than husband of petitioner/accused and any act that was done
by the petitioner/accused on the date of the incident, is only out of
anxiety as her daughter was asking about her father.
16. There is no prima facie case to prove that the act of the
petitioner/accused would attract the offences punishable under
Sections 448 and 506 of IPC. When such is the case, there is no
point in allowing her to face the entire ordeal of trial. In view of the
15
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.10058 of 2023
aforesaid circumstances, this Court is convinced and quashes the
proceedings in respect of petitioner/accused.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in Calendar Case No.225 of 2016 pending on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, as against
the petitioner/accused, are quashed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
st
31 March, 2026.
DNB
