Disposed

PenumakaSubba Rao v. State through S.H.O.

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Aug 2023CRLP/2330/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, hearing a criminal petition by married daughters alleging false accusation of dowry harassment, observed that allegations in the petitioners' case mirrored those in a separate complaint filed by the 1st accused's sister against her husband. Disposing the petition with a direction to complete the investigation expeditiously in accordance with law and prohibiting coercive steps against t

What did the court decide?

Direction to IO to complete investigation expeditiously; respondents barred from taking coercive steps against petitioners pending investigation.

PenumakaSubba Rao Vs State through S.H.O. — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.2330 of 2022

¶3

Order:

¶4

The petitioners are A2 to A4 in Crime No.592 of 2018 of

¶5

Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent-de facto complainant.

¶7

The complaint, which was filed against 1^st accused, including the petitioners herein, was that 1^st accused had treated the de facto complainant with great cruelty during the course of the marriage and had also harassed her for payment of dowry. The allegation against the petitioners was that they were members of the family of 1^st accused, who had abetted 1^st accused in harassing the de facto complainant.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the entire case is a mala fide exercise of authority by the husband of 4^th accused in the case and that the complaint itself is a clear abuse of the process of law.

¶9

¶10

He would submit that 3^rd petitioner herein i.e. 4^th accused, who is the sister of 1^st accused, was married to a police officer and on account of his harassment, 3^rd petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against her husband for offences under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband of 3^rd petitioner, in order to pressurize her and her family members including 1^st accused, had advised, encouraged and instigated the defacto complainant in filing a false complaint.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners would also point out to the similarity of the allegations made in the complaint filed against the petitioners herein and the complaint filed by 4^th accused/sister of 1^st accused, against her husband. He would submit that the allegations in the complaint, filed by the present de facto complainant, are an exact replica of the allegations made against her husband by 4^th accused. It is also admitted on all sides that the petitioners have been given the benefit of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the investigation has been carried on against the petitioners and that further investigation was not carried against 1^st accused on account of the stay granted by this Court.

¶12

¶13

A comparison of the complaint filed by 4^th accused i.e. 3^rd petitioner herein, against her husband and the present complaint shows that some of the allegations in both the complaints are an exact replica of each other.

¶14

However, this Court would have to look at the question whether a case is made out against the accused person, on the basis of the allegations found in the complaint. This Court would not go into these allegations, at the stage of considering the veracity of the allegations, as the said exercise would have to be carried out by the investigating officer and subsequently by the trial Court.

¶15

However, keeping in view the manner in which the complaint has been filed, this Court is of the opinion that some direction requires to be given during the pendency of the investigation.

¶16

In these Circumstances, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the investigating officer to complete the

¶17

investigation, strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Needless to say, in view of the above observations, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners, pending the investigation.

¶18

¶19

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶20

pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶21

_________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

¶22

Date:16.08.2023 ARB

¶23

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶25

Criminal Petition No.2330 of 2022

¶26

Date:16.08.2023

¶27

ARB

PenumakaSubba Rao v. State through S.H.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

PenumakaSubba Rao v. State through S.H.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kantimahanti Naresh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.D.Latha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.D.Latha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Medidi Venkatewswarlu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Arava Satyanarayana at Sathibabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Vinay Kumar G.A. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh