Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Ennalarohini vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 May, 2025
i\
lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATlf.#Z=ilit~ifi
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ,zg
: PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5008 OF 2025 #4f
Between :
1. Smt. Ennala Rohini, W/o. Late Ennala Bhagawan Das, Hindu, aged
about 73 years, Occ: Housewife,` R/o. Flat No.803,16 LH, Lanco Hills-;:
Manikonda, R.R.District, Hyderabad City
`-+ | . `try
2. Kamineni Venugopala Krishr`a, Sl/o. Kamineni Srinivas, Hindu, aged
about 46 years, Occ: Busine-ss, ,R/a. Varahapatnam, Kaikaluru MandaI,
Krishna District
3. Swapna Ennala Kamineni, W/on Kamineni VenugopaI, HI-ndu, aged
about 44 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Varahapatnam, Kaikaluru
Mandal, Krishna District
4. Sravanthi Ennala, W/o. Yogesh J|adhao, Hindu, aged about 42 years,
Occ: Medical Practitioner, R/o.`24-30, Richmond Rd, Beachwood, O.H:i
44122, USA
Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 5 gr
``.| c-
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
Buildings, at Amaravathi
Eii
Respondent No.1
2. Vindhya Ennala, W/o. Sande`ep Ennaia, Hindu, aged about 40 years',-c
Occ: S~oftware Employee, R/a. D.No.4-21, Nagarjuna Nagar, S.B.I
Officers Colony, Valasapakaia`+Village, Kakjnada Rural MandaI, East
Godavari (Now Kakinada) District a,,,4
Respondent No.2/ Defacto Complainant
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances
stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in Crime No. 8 of 2025 dated 16-
`` .
03-2025 on the file of Mahila UPS, Kakinada for the Offences Punishable
u/s.85, 316(2)`of BNS Act 2023 and `Seciion~ 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
iANO: 2OF2025
Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings including appearance of
the petitioners in crime No. 8 of 202'5 d'ated 16-03-2025 on the file of Mahila _..I
ups, Kakinada, Pending disposal c;i CRLp No.5008 of 2025, on the file of the
High court.
The petition coming on for he'ar`ing, upon perusing the Petition and the
grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Ms (`'...I
ivinobha Devi, Advocate for the Petitioners, and of Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent No.1, the Court made th,.e`fol!owing.
ORDER
ll Heard the submissions of. Eke learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the lea,rued Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the state.
2. The learned senior coun`se! f.®r the petitioners submits that the petitioners were arraigned as A.2,±o A|5 in Crime No.8 of 2025 of Manila Ups, Kakinada, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged 6ffences under Sections 85, 316(,2)_-`_.®frE`ite B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.
I-,T£J
3. lt is submitted that the 2nd`respondent initially filed a complaint before the Raidurg Police Statioh-; which was not registered aS a Cr-lme. [t is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that the complaint filecl by the 2nd respondent before the Telangana Women Commission specifically states that the complaint lodged on 26.06.2023 at Raidurg police Station was not registered as-a First Information Report (F[R). lt is also stated that the 2nd respondent did not wish for the FIR to be registered.
i
4. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeki`ng the transfer of F.C.O.P.No.85 of 2024, filed by A.1 against the _2nd`=respondent. The Hon'b[e Supreme Court referred the parties to mediation. However, mediation efforts are I . I unsuccessfu[l Following the failure of mediation, 1:he 2nd respondent l ?pproached Mahila UPS, KakirI,ad,a,`o, and lodged a complaint under sections 85, 316(2) of the B.N.So.
• /-` I and
---- Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.
5. ln the present complaint, the 2nd respondent has implicated heH spouse, in|[aws, and other relatives Qf All. However, in the complaint •_I ,~` filed before the Te[angana Women Commission, no allegations wer? inade against the petitioners heretin,,.except those against All. lt is further submitted that the 4th pe€ittione,r is a resident of the United States I pf America and was not present in ,india at the time of 1:he registration of the alleged crime. The 4tll pe€i`ti9ner, having Settled in the USA immediately after marriage, has ne.yer been involved in the marital . -V `-` disputes between Al and the 2nd responc!ent. `
6| Considering the submissi`®ns, there shall be stay of a][ further ?J proceedings -In Crime No.8 of `20257 Of Mahi[a UPS, Kakinada, Eas€ Godavari District, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
I
7. The learned counsel for t`he petitioners is permitted 1:o serve personal notice on the 2nd respondent by RPAD and file proof of service n the registry.
8l List the mat:ter on 23.06.2'0£5[ J\J§ffrfe_ Z Sd/-K. J. RAJA BABU ASSIST-ANT-REGISTFtAR //TR,UECOPY//Fob SEC%NOr-F!CER To,
1. The Station House Officer, Mahi[a UPS, Kakinada G#
2. Vindhya Ennala, W/o. Sande`ep..Ennala Hindu, aged about 40 years, occ:software Employee, R/o.A. DoNo.4-21, Nagarjuna Nagar, Ggr S.ri officers colony, valasapakalar:Village, Kakinada Rural MandaI, East . ` Godava,ri (Now Kakinada) Dis,trie{ (by 'RPAD) _..I,.
3. One CC to M/s M Vinobha Deivi,_ Advocate [OPUC] =j*L'-`.i ++:- E= 1E
4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh [OUT]
5. One spare copy t`¢\.. = ...\ _ I ~-I +I_\ HIGH COURT HN,J DATED: 05/05/2025 LIST THE MATTER ON 23.06.2025 ORDER ./ CRLP.NO.5008 OF 2025 INTERIM STAY