IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO ■nX,

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1659 OF 2008

Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of CrPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case to this Hon'ble Court against the Order of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (For Prohibition & Excise) Kurnool, in Crl.M.P.No.1350 of 2008 in C.C.No. 334 of 2007, dated 8th day of September, 2008

Between:

• 1. Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Lakshma Naik, Aged 30 Years, R/o. Sri Lakshmi Nagar, Kurnool Town.
• 2. Savithri, W/o. Krishna Naik, R/o. Sri Lakshmi Nagar, Kurnool Town,

...PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED No's. ⁴ & ⁵

AND

Ramavath Venkata Lakshmi Bai, W/o. Rama Raju, aged 20 Years, R/o. Sri Lakshmi Nagar, Kurnool Town.

...LW.1

V

s

.i.

/

iV

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravati.

...RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANTS

I.A. NO: ¹ OF 2008 fCRLRCMP. NO: 2285 OF 2008)

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 the appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No. 334 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition & Excise), Kurnool pending disposal of the Criminal RC

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C SHARAN REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following ORDER :

APHC010136572008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] ^N

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1659/2008

Between;

...PETITIONER{S) Vijaya Kumari & another

AND

...RESPONDENT(S) Ramavath Venkata Lakshmi Bai and others

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

C.Sharan Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

I.M. Jayaram Reddy

2. Public Prosecutor

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Revision has been preferred under Sections ³⁹⁷ and ⁴⁰¹ of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C') against the judgment dated 08.09.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.1350 of 2008, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of ^I Class (for Prohibition and Excise) Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed under Section ²³⁹ of 'the Cr.P.C.,:for discharge of petitioners/A4 and A5.

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.l659 of 2008 Dated 07.03.2025

2. ^I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. petitioners

3. Sri Ismail, learned counsel, representing Sri C. Sharan learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners sisters of A1 who are no way connected with case. They never committed any offence. They are residing separately along with their respective husbands. The petitioner No.1 is resident of Nandyal. The marriages of petitioners were taken place prior to the marriage of A1. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra^ and requested to allow the revision by setting aside the order of refusal to discharge the petitioners. Reddy, the are married

4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the order of the learned Magistrate and submitted that there clear allegations leveled in the first information recorded under Section 161 of 'the Cr.P.C. are report and statements statement of L.W.1 and they clearly attract an offence punishable under Section 498-A of 'the I.P.C ' against the petitioners who are A4 and A5.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Prosecutor. ^I have perused the record. Public

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.l659 of 2008 Dated 07.03.2025

"Whether the judgment in CrI.M.P.No. 1350 of 2008 in C.C.334 of 2007 dated 08.09.2008, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition & Excise) Kurnool, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?"

7. It is opposite to refer the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in

Digambar supra wherein at para No. 19, 20 (25) it is held as under:

"19. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant are that in the year 2015, the appellants inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her as she could not give birth to a male child. Such allegations made by the complainant appear to be vague as no specific instances of harassment are mentioned. No specific role or allegation is leveled on either of the appellants and no specific incident of physical or mental cruelty has been mentioned. A mere omnibus statement has been made that the physical and mental cruelty was afflicted because the complainant could not provide a male child. Furthermore, it is merely mentioned that the appellants would instigate the husband to harass the complainant, but again, no specific or precise instances are mentioned as to how the appellants instigated their son and what acts were committed by him as a direct result of such instigation.

It would be appropriate to refer to a recent decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal 5199 of 2024 titled as Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana. This court dealt with the ingredients of Section 498-A and whether the same are attracted through vague allegations raised by the complainant (wife). It was observed that: 20.

A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a wellrecognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must ex'erctSe caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal 20 (25).

Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.l659 of 2008 Dated 07.03.2025

provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No. 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them."

8. In the instant case ^a perusal of the statements recorded under Section 161 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' the de facto complainant stated that the petitioners come to the house of L.W.1 by leaving their children in the house used instigate her husband to beat her and demand to bring additional dowry. It can be gainsaid that the petitioners are married and they are living with their respective husband separately. Their marriages were performed much prior to the marriage of A1 and L.W.1. Mere referring the names of the family members especially the sisters-in-law in a criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute without specific allegations indicating by actual involvement should nipped in the bud. L.W.1 failed to mention either in the first information report given to the police or in the statement recorded under Section 161 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' that the petitioners on what date and time harassed L.W.1 specifically mentioned. Only omnibus allegations are leveled against the petitioners. To attract cruelty, it is not specifically enough to through a bald allegation against sisters-in-laws, who are living separately with their husband. A mere vague statement cannot substitute to ^a proof that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A of 'the I.P.C'. specific instances are mentioned as to how the petitioners instigated husband of L.W.1 to cause harassment or cruelty. be are not No the

Dr. YLR, J CrI. R. C. No. 1659 of 2008 Dated 07.03.2025

9. it is to be pointed out that no specific incident of physical or mental cruelty is mentioned by the de facto complainant either in the report or the statement under Section 161 of 'the Cr.P.C'. So, in view of the vague and omnibus allegations mentioned in the FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' statement it can be deduced that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners. If a prima facie case is not made out on petitioners, it was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to exercise his discretion and power conferred under Section 239 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and discharge the petitioners. The order impugned order is not sustainable and the petitioners ought to have been discharged by the learned Trial Court.

10. In view of the above reasons, the revision case is allowed setting aside the order dated 08.09.2008 in CrI.M.P.No.1350 of 2008 in C.C.No.334 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition & Excise) Kurnool, consequently the petitioners are discharged for the offence under Section 498-A of 'the I.P.C'. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

SD/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY, REGISTRAR SE ON OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

'

1. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise), Kurnool, Kurnool District

5

• 2. Ramavath Venkata Lakshmi Bai, W/o. Rama Raju, aged 20 Years, R/o. Sri Lakshmi Nagar, Kurnool Town.
• 3. One CC to SRI. C SHARAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUO
• 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT]
• 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi
• 6. Three CD Copies

MV TAC

V

HIGH COURT DATED: 07/03/2025

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1659 of 2008

ALLOWING THE CRLRC