Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Petta Puspavathi vs Ch.Bhajanlal on 29 April, 2026
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010195662023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2936/2023
Between:
1. PETTA PUSPAVATHI, W/O PEDA ERRIYYA, 59 YEARS, SC-MALA,
D.NO. 4-29/A, GUTHINADEEVI VILLAGE, I. POLAVARAM MANDAL,
EAST-GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. MAGAPU KISHORE, S/O SATYANARAYANA, 38 YEARS, SC-MALA,
D.NO. 2-105, KARAPA CHINTHALA PUDI VILLAGE,
MAMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, EAST-GODAVARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.
2. PETTA PARIMALA, W/O BALA VEERA VENKATARAMANA, AGE 26
YEARS, SC-MALA, VOOLAPALLI VILLAGE, BICCAVOLE MANDAL,
EAST-GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...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 quash the proceedings in C.C.
No. 772/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Anaparthi, East Godavari District in Crime (FIR) No. 165 of 2021 of the S.H.O.
of Biccavole Police Station, for the offence punishable Under section 498-A
IPC, 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act), and pass
2
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
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 dispense with Photostat copies in C.C. No.
772/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Anaparthi,
East Godavari District in Crime (FIR) No. 165 of 2021 of the S.H.O. of
Biccavole Police Station, for the offence punishable Under section 498-A IPC,
3 86 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act), and pass
IA NO: 2 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 in C.C. No.
772/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Anaparthi,
East Godavari District in Crime (FIR) No. 165 of 2021 of the S.H.O. of
Biccavole Police Station, for the offence punishable Under section 498-A IPC,
3 86 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act) including with the appearance, till the
disposal of the main case and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
3
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioners/A.2 and A.3, to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.772 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Anaparthi, East Godavari District relating to Crime
No.165 of 2021 of Biccavole Police Station, registered against the
Petitioners/A.2 and A.3 and other accused, for the offences punishable under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‗IPC‘) and Section
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for brevity ‗DP Act‘).
2. The allegations against the petitioners/accused, as set out in the charge
sheet, are that 2nd respondent-defacto complainant, a resident of Voolapalli
Village, married A-1, Petta Bala Veera Venkata Ramana, on 17.01.2019, after
fulfillment of dowry demands and customary gifts. A-1, a Software Engineer
working in South Africa, allegedly subjected her to harassment for additional
dowry, with the support of A-2 (his mother) and A-3 (his relative). It is further
alleged that A-1 pressurized her to give consent for divorce for the purpose of
contracting another marriage for higher dowry and ultimately drove her out of
the matrimonial home, forcing her to return to her parental house. As
reconciliation efforts failed, she lodged the police report. Based on the said
report, a case in Crime No. 165/2021 was registered for the offences under
Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The investigating
officer examined the complainant and witnesses, inspected the scene of
offence, and recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion
4
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
of investigation, a prima facie case was found against A-1 to A-3, and a
charge sheet was filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/A.2 and A.3
submits that, even if the entire allegations are taken to be true, no prima facie
case for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the
DP Act is made out against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that,
apart from a vague and omnibus allegation that the petitioners supported A.1
in harassing the de facto complainant, there are no specific allegations against
them. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are the mother and
sister of A.1, and that all the allegations in the charge sheet are primarily
attributed to A.1. He further submits that, pursuant to the directions of this
Court, notice has been issued to Respondent No.2; however, although the
notice has been duly served, there has been no appearance on behalf of
Respondent No.2.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of
Respondent No.1-State, submits that there is a specific allegation against the
petitioners/accused that they supported A.1 in harassing the de facto
complainant for additional dowry. According to him, the said allegation is
sufficient to require the petitioners to face trial, as truth or otherwise of the said
accusation, has to be determined during the course of trial, and at this stage,
interference by this Court at the threshold is not warranted.
5
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/A.2 and
A.3 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
Respondent No.1-State. Perused the material available on 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
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 value1
AIR 1992 SC 604
6
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023and 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 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
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.‖
7. Marriage of A.1 was performed with the de facto complainant on
17.01.2019 in the presence of elders by fulfilling their dowry demand and
other customs. A.1 was working as a Software Engineer in South Africa. It is
alleged that A.1 has been harassing the de facto complainant for the sake of
7
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
additional dowry by criticizing her with harsh words. In this connection, the
petitioners are alleged to have supported A.1. It is further alleged that A.1
demanded defacto complainant to give consent for divorce so that he could
contract another marriage for additional dowry. He is also alleged to have
coerced her, under the influence of certain substances, to speak in his favour
in order to get rid of her, and ultimately drove her out of his house. Despite
best efforts to pacify A.1, as the same has not been materialized, the de facto
complainant lodged the present complaint against the petitioners and her in-
laws.
8. Going by the accusations in the charge sheet, except a vague and bald
accusation that the petitioners supported A.1 in harassing the de facto
complainant, there is no other material against the petitioners in the charge
sheet to connect them with the offences alleged. This Court perused the
statements of the witnesses, which are integral part of the charge sheet. In
those statements also, there is absolutely no specific accusation as against
the petitioners, except reiterating the bald statements that has been
mentioned in the charge sheet.
9. In a decision reported 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
2
(2010) 7 SCC 667
8
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
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 such 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.
9
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
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 insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
close relations.‖
10. 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-in-law
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, taking
3
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251
10
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
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 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
11
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
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.‖
11. In a decision reported 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,
4
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141
12
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023this 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.‖It has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court
that it has become a routine practice for the victims in matrimonial offences to
implicate all the family members of A.1 with a view to wreck vengeance. Since
the accusations set out in the charge sheet are vague and bald, continuation
of proceedings as against the petitioners herein would amount to an abuse of
process of Court. Even if the entire accusations made as against the
petitioners/A.2 and A.3 are accepted as true and correct, no prima facie case
for the offences alleged is made out against them. The present case squarely
falls under Clause (3) of the Bhajan lal’s case (1 supra). When such is the
case, there is no point in allowing the petitioners to face the entire ordeal of
trial. Hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse
of process of Court.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in
Calendar Case No.772 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Judicial
13
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
Magistrate of First Class, Anaparthi, East Godavari District, as against the
petitioners/A.2 and A.3 herein are quashed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Date: 29.04.2026.
MS
14
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.2936 of 2023
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Petition No: 2936 of 2023
Date: 29.04.2026
MS
