Vanka Gurumurthy & Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.75 of 2026 of the Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station, Kakinada, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “the D.P. Act”).

The case of the petitioners is that the police erred in registering the report lodged by respondent No.2 for the offences referred to above. It is contended that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners and that the allegations in the report are false, baseless and frivolous. According to the petitioners, owing to misunderstandings and family disputes, respondent No.2 started living separately from her husband, Accused No.1, and withdrew from his society without reasonable cause or lawful justification. It is further stated that Accused No.1 issued a legal notice requesting respondent No.2 to join him, which was received by her on 03.07.2026, and that she lodged the report thereafter. The petitioners contend that no specific allegations are made against them and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

Heard Sri Perla Nookaraju, learned counsel representing Ms. D. Shoba Rani, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Perused the petition, the report and the other material available on record.

As seen from the report, respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of Accused No.1. Owing to matrimonial disputes, they have been living separately. On the report lodged by respondent No.2, Crime No.75 of 2026 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners and Accused No.1, the husband of respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 lodged the report only after Accused No.1 issued the legal notice; that respondent No.2 herself withdrew from the society of her husband; and that no allegations warranting prosecution are made against the petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are residents of Jharkhand and have not participated in the matrimonial affairs of Accused No.1 and respondent No.2. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks quashing of the proceedings, or, in the alternative, dispensation with the personal appearance of petitioner Nos.3 and 4.

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that specific allegations have been made against each of the petitioners and that the truth or otherwise of those allegations cannot be determined in a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings. It is also submitted that the investigation is at an initial stage and that examination of the witnesses has not yet been completed.

The fact that respondent No.2 lodged the report after issuance of the legal notice by Accused No.1, by itself, is not sufficient to conclude that the report is false or that the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Such a circumstance may be considered along with the other material, but it does not, at this stage, displace the allegations contained in the report.

The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While considering a petition for quashing, the Court is ordinarily required to proceed on the basis of the allegations in the complaint and the material collected by the prosecution, without conducting a mini-trial or examining the correctness, reliability or genuineness of disputed allegations. Where the allegations, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence, the proceedings may be quashed. These principles were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal^{11.1992 Supp (1) SCC 335},.

In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustrated categories of cases in which the inherent power may be exercised, including cases where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence; where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected do not disclose the commission of an offence; where the allegations are inherently improbable; where a legal bar operates against the proceedings; or where the proceedings are manifestly attended by mala fides. The categories are illustrative and do not limit the inherent power of the Court to secure the ends of justice.

In the present case, the report contains allegations against the petitioners in relation to the alleged matrimonial offences. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to test the veracity of those allegations or to record findings on disputed questions of fact. The contention that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 reside in Jharkhand, by itself, is also not a ground to quash the proceedings, particularly when allegations have been made against them. The petitioners’ request for quashing the proceedings, therefore, cannot be accepted.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The investigation in Crime No.75 of 2026 shall proceed in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are confined to the disposal of the present petition and shall not prejudice the investigating agency while conducting the investigation or the competent Court while considering the case on its merits.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.