. Be that as it may, since the Petitioners are not family members or the relatives of Accused No.1, no offence is made out against them and the case against the Petitioners under Section 498-A IPC is not maintainable. Admittedly, no allegations are made against them to attract the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the 2024:APHC:17893 6 Petitioners is not tenable since no prima facie is made out. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C is essential to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

APHC010017632020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI

PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 266/2020

Between:

1. BANDLA KRISHNA VENI,, W/O. RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 27

YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.PULLEPALLI VILLAGE,

DONAKANDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

2. PEMMASANI NARAYANAMMA,, W/O.GALAIAH, AGED ABOUT

48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.KASTURI BAI STREET,

MARKAPUR TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI.

2. SUHASHINI CHINTHAPALLI, W/O.VEERARAGHAVULU, AGED

ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. EAST STREET,

MARKAPURAM TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.V R REDDY KOVVURI

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

2024:APHC:17893

2

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19731

has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5,

seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.470 of

2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Markapur, Prakasam District for the offences punishable under

Section 498-A, 109 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,18602

.

2. The contents of the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:

a. About 15 years ago, marriage of the complainant was performed

with Accused No.1 and they were blessed with one son and a daughter.

For the past four years, Accused No.1 developed illegal intimacy with

Accused No.4. When the complainant questioned the Accused No.1, he

assaulted her and Accused Nos.2 and 3 also supported Accused No.1.

b. With the instigation of Accused Nos.1 to 3, Accused Nos.4 and 5

are also harassing the complainant both physically and mentally. Accused

No.1 also took the signatures of the complainant forcibly on the four

empty ICICI cheques. Basing on the report of the complainant, a case in

Cr.No.129 of 2019 under Section 498-A, 109 and 506 read with 34 of the

IPC has been registered by the Police on 01.07.2019.

1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’

2 for short ‘IPC’

2024:APHC:17893

3

c. The Sub Inspector of Police, Markapur Town Police Station filed

charge sheet after completion of investigation and Court has taken

cognizance for the said offences.

3. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against them,

Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 filed the present petition on the following

grounds:

a. The allegation that Accused No.4 has illegal intimacy with Accused

No.1 with the support of her mother i.e., Accused No.5 is utterly

false.

b. Accused No.4 is a married woman and leading her matrimonial life

in a respectful manner and dragging her into the present case is

due to the disputes between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2.

c. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are not the blood relatives of Accused No.1

and question of prosecuting them under Section 498-A of the IPC

does not arise.

d. Respondent No.2 has implicated them in the present case only to

settle her scores with Accused No.1.

4. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the Petitioners,

Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondents.

2024:APHC:17893

4

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 would

submit that the marriage of Accused No.1 with Respondent No.2 took

place 15 years back and they were blessed with two children. It is alleged

that Accused No.1 has been maintaining illicit relationship with Accused

No.4 and neglected the welfare of Respondent No.2 and her children. It is

stated that in the complaint that though Respondent No.2 brought to the

notice of his parents, they have supported Accused No.1.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would urge that the case

against Accused Nos.4 and 5 is not maintainable for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC as not being relatives of the

husband. It is stated further that Section 498-A is a primary offence

because it is alleged that Accused No.1 has got illegal intimacy with

Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 is the mother of Accused No.4. it is also

stated that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is a married women living with her

husband, and because of the disputes between the couple, she was

brought into this case.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court

may pass appropriate orders since the Petitioners are not relatives of the

husband of Respondent No.2.

8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing

both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

2024:APHC:17893

5

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment

of the proceedings against the Petitioners in C.C.No.470

of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, Prakasam District?

9. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not

functioning as a trial court or court of appeal or a court of revision. It must

exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the

facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for

compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which

are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

10. It is a well settled principle of law that when a prosecution is

sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see

whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the

offence alleged or not. Considering the submissions made and a fair look

at the report submitted to the Police, nothing is attributed against the

Petitioner/ Accused No.5. It is alleged against Accused No.4 that the

husband of Respondent No.2 has got illegal intimacy with her. Be that as

it may, since the Petitioners are not family members or the relatives of

Accused No.1, no offence is made out against them and the case against

the Petitioners under Section 498-A IPC is not maintainable. Admittedly,

no allegations are made against them to attract the offence under Section

506 of the IPC. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the

2024:APHC:17893

6

Petitioners is not tenable since no prima facie is made out. In such

circumstances, this Court is of the view that exercise of the inherent powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C is essential to prevent abuse of the process of the

Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

11. In that view, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the case

against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.470 of 2019 on the

file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur,

Prakasam District for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 109

and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________

 JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date: 03.04.2024

JLV

2024:APHC:17893

7

178

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.266 of 2020

Dt.03.04.2024

JLV

2024:APHC:17893