Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pulivarthi Jayamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 August, 2025
APHC010205512024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3054/2024
Between:
1. PULIVARTHI JAYAMMA, (A-2), W/O. PULIVARTHI SAI BABU, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, AT PRESENT R/O. D.NO 4-191/62/2, NTR
NAGAR COLONY, ROAD NO.3, NIZAMPET VILLAGE, BACHUPALLI
MANDAL, MEDCHAL, MALKAJIGIRI DISTRICT, TELANGANA -
500090.
2. PULIVARTHI SAI BABU, (A-3), S/O. PULIVARTHI SARVESWARA
LINGAM (LATE). AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AT PRESENT R/O. D.NO
4-191/62/2 NTR NAGAR COLONY, ROAD NO.3, NIZAMPET
VILLAGE, BACHUPALLI MANDAL, MEDCHAL, MALKAJIGIRI
DISTRICT, TELANGANA - 500090.
3. VALLURI PURNIMA, (A-3), W/O. NAGA BABU, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, R/O. D.NO 7-22, SIVALAYAM STREET, PEDA TUMMIDI
VILLAGE, BANTUMILLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 521329.
4. NALLURI BHUVANESWARI @ BHUMI, (A-4), W/O. RAGHURAM,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEAR /O. D.NO 6-5-31, FATHE NAGAR,
MOOSAPET RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA - 500018.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, THROUGH PENAMALURU P.S, HIGH COURT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
2
2. PULIVARTHI NAGA RAMYA, W/O. PULIVARTHI KALYAN KUMAR,
D/O. JUJJAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 22 YEARS. AT
PRESENT R/O. D.NO S.V.B.P. ROAD, KANKIPADU VILLAGE,
KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521151
3. PULIVARTHI KALYAN KUMAR, (A-1) S/O. PULIVARTHI SAI BABU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,AT PRESENT R/O. D.NO NTR NAGAR
COLONY, ROAD NO.3, NIZAMPET VILLAGE, BACHUPALLI
MANDAL, MEDCHAL, MALKAJIGIRI DISTRICT, TELANGANA-500090
...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 Courtmay be pleased to call for the records
relating to the Proceedings in CC No. 5956 of 2023 on the file of II AddI Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District and quash the
proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 5 in CC. No. 5956 of
2023 of Penamaluru P.S., Krishna District only in the interests of justice,
equity and good conscience; is liable to be quashed in so far as it relates to
the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 5 and thus render justice
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 may be pleased to dispense with the filing of
certified copies of Records in CC No. 5956 of 2023 on the file of II AddI Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada; pending disposal of the above CRLP
and pass such
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
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 may be pleased to Stay of all Proceedings
including the personal appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 5 in
CC No.5956 of 2023 on the file of II AddI Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Vijayawada against the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 5 till pending disposal of
the above CRLP and pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
3
1. M VENKATA SAI NIKHIL KASHYAP
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
4
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3054/2024
ORDER:
The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.5956 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, Krishna District for the offences punishable under Section 498 A of IPC.
2. Heard Sri, learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5, Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners herein are the Accused Nos. 2 to 5, i.e., the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the mother and father of the Accused No.1 respectively and the petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 are the sisters of the Accused No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that after the marriage, the respondent No.2 stayed with Accused No.1 only for few months. Learned counsel would submit that except making omnibus allegations, nothing is attributed against the petitioners in specific. Learned counsel would further submit that only as an arm-twist, this case has been lodged against the family members. Even as per the contents of the 5 complaint, the only allegation made against the petitioners is that they encouraged and joined the accused No.1/husband while harassing the respondent No.2/defacto complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioners harassed the defacto complainant physically and mentally by using abusive words. Except that, there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 498A against the petitioners and continuing criminal proceedings against them is mere abuse of process of law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners/A2 to A5. Learned counsel would further submit that the accused No.1/husband harassed the defacto complainant demanding additional dowry and the petitioners herein also joined in harassing the defacto complainant. Learned counsel would further submit that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 498A against all the petitioners and it is not a fit case for quashment. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 finally prays for dismissal of the petition.
Determination by the Court:
5. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and 6 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.
6. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar1, 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 instance that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged."1
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 7 (emphasis supplied)
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another2, highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows;
"25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute."
(emphasis supplied)
8. In Payal Sharma v. State of Punjaband Another3, the Hon'ble Supreme Courtheld as follows::
"The decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurize 2 2024 INSC 369 3 2024 INSC 896 8 the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions."
(emphasis supplied)
9. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others vs. State of Telangana and Another4, the Hon'ble Supreme Courtheld as follows::
"31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."
(emphasis supplied) 4 2024 INSC 953 9
10. To summarize the judgments referred 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. In the backdrop of legal position referred supra, the case of the petitioners has to be scrutinized with great care and caution of factual aspects of the matter.
11. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioners, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 who are the family members of the husband is mere abuse of process of law, in absence of the specific allegations attributed against them.
12. In that view of the matter, the Criminal petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 in C.C.No.5956 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, Krishna District for the offences punishable under Section 498 A of IPC, is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 19.08.2025 UPS 10 170 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3054/2024 Dated.19.08.2025 UPS