Markapudi Venu Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Markapudi Tarun, S/o Seetharamulu, Aged: 26 yrs Native of Kodumuru Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. Presently working in IVY Comptech Private Limited, 5th and 6th Floor, B-Block, Divya Sri Omega, Plot No. 13/E, Survey No. 13(Part), Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084, Telangana.

¶12

...Petitioners/Accused 2 to 4

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.

¶15

Smt. Markapudi Sravani, W/o Kiran, D/o. Nelaturi Venkata Appa Rao, Aged 28 years, R/o. Jeelugimilli Village and Mandal, Elum (Erstwhile West Godavari) District.

¶16

...Respondents/Defacto Complainant

¶17

A.-

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in CC No.797/2023 on the ■file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC.No. 797/2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem, including their appearance, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 22-01-2024 in CrI. P.No.262 of 2024 pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Jyothi Prasad

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.

¶25

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri J.Ravi Kumar

¶26

The Court made the following order:

¶27

APHC010019612024

¶28

[3457]

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH K AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶33

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 262/2024

¶34

Between:

¶35

1.MARKAPUDI VENU LAKSHMI, W/0 SEETHARAMULU, AGED 54YRS, R/0 KODUMUM VILLAGE, CHINTAKANI MANDAL, KHAMMAM DISTRICT, TELANGANA.

¶36

2.MARKAPUDI SEETHARAMULU,, S/0 NAGA SESHU DASU, AGED⁵⁶ YRS, R/0 KODUMUM VILLAGE, CHINTAKANI MANDAL, KHAMMAM DISTRICT, TELANGANA.

¶37

3.MARKAPUDI TARUN,, S/0 SEETHARAMULU, AGED 26 YRS. NATIVE OF KODUMUM VILLAGE, CHINTAKANI MANDAL, KHAMMAM DISTRICT, TELANGANA. PRESENTLY WORKING IN IVYCOMPTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, 5TH AND 6TH PJOOR, B-BLOCK, DIVYA^SRI OMEGA, PLOT NO. 13/E, SURVEY NO.L3(PART), KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500084, TELANGANA.

¶38

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶39

AND

¶40

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

¶41

2.SMT MARKAPUDI SRAVANI, W/0 KIRAN, D/0 NELATURI VENKATA APPA RAO, AGED 28 YEARS, R/0. JEELUGIMILLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ELUM (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI) DISTRICT.

¶42

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶43

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

¶44

II2II

¶45

Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to quash all further proceedings in CC No.797/2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem in the interest of justice and to pass

¶46

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶47

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 Pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC.No. 797/2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem, including their appearance, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition and to pass

¶48

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶49

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 extend^{theinterimorderdated:} 22-01-2024 in CrI. P.No.262 of 2024 pending disposal^{oftheaboveCriminal} Petition, in the interest of justice and to pass

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶51

1.KJYOTH I PRASAD

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶53

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶54

2.J RAVI KUMAR

¶55

The Court made the following:

¶56

112,11

¶57

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶58

CRIMINAL PETITION No.262 of 2(\7A

¶59

ORDER:

¶60

The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4 in CC.No.797 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem for alleged offence under Section 498-A, 506 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶61

The petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the accused No.1 and the 3'"'^ petitioner is the brother of the accused No.1. On the strength of the complaint filed by the 2'^'^ respondent, the Jeelugumilli Police Station registered Crime No.285 of 2022 against the petitioners along with accused No.1. It is submitted that the police after investigation filed charge sheet against accused No.1 only. The police in the charge sheet have clearly stated that allegations against the petitioners were not established.

¶62

It is submitted that the 2^^ respondent filed a protest petition and the learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the 2'^'^ respondent has passed the docket order dated 22.08.2023 duly taking the case on file against A1 to A4 for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition^Act.

¶63

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 would indicate that there was no material placed before the learned Magistrate in the form of oral or documentary^evidencefor disregarding the charge sheet. It is also submitted that there are

¶64

UAH

¶65

absolutely no allegations against the petitioners either^{inthecomplaintor} the charge sheet which would point the finger of suspicion^towardsthe petitioners. The memo of evidence filed along with the charge sheet would also amply clarify that LWs.1 to 6 would reveal allegations against accused No.1 only and not against the petitioners.

¶66

The learned counsel appearing for the 2"'^ respondent^{submitsthatthe} accused No.1 was maintaining an illicit extra marital relationship with a woman in his village i.e., Kodumuru. It is submitted^{thattheaccusedNo.1} used to frequently visit the village and did not take the 2"'^ respondent along with him whenever he was visiting the village.

¶67

It is submitted that the illicit relationship between the accused No.1 existed even prior to the marriage and that the investigating^officerdid not visit the village to ascertain the illicit relationship. It is submitted that the investigating officer failed to conduct a proper investigation, as such, filed a charge sheet by deleting the petitioners from the array of accused by simply stating that case against the petitioners^{wasnotestablished.}

¶68

It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has^{consideredtheissuein} totality and has passed a well reasoned order on the protest petition filed by the 2"'* respondent. It is submitted that the respondent^willbeable to establish the case against the petitioners during^{thecourseoftrial} before the trial Court.

¶69

//5//

¶70

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 2"^

¶71

respondent and also the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state. Perused the material on record.

¶72

The main grievance of the 2"'^ respondent can be summarized as follows;

¶73

a. the marriage was performed on 27.08.2021 at Kodumuru Village and at prior to the marriage on demand of A2 and A3, parents of LWs.2 and 3 gave Rs. 13,00,000/- in cash towards dowry to accused No. 1, apart from gold ring and gold bracelet to accused No.¹ in presence of elders who performed the marriage,

¶74

b. the parents of the complainantgave Rs.2,00,000/-^worth sare saman on demand ofA2 and A3,

¶75

c. A1 and A2 lived along with the 2^^ respondent at Hyderabad. A3 was doing Chapliancy at Kodumuru Village and that A3 used to visit the house of A1. It is alleged that A1 used to visit village alone and that^{2"^} respondent came to know about illicit intimacy of A1^with one Shoba prior to marriage,

¶76

d. On questioning about the illegal affair of A1, A1^usedto harass the 2"'^ respondent physically and mentally^and demanded additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

¶77

e. On 05.09.2022 A1 was caught red-handed with Shoba and a panchayat was held A1 shows to live with Shoba instead of 2'’°' respondent and thereafter left the 2'^^ respondent at her maternal home on 07.09.2022. Thereafter a complaint was filed by the 2"°' respondent herein.

¶78

The sworn statement of the 2"^ respondent is also perused by this Court.

¶79

It is crisp in so far as allegations against accused^{No.1isconcerned.The} petitioners are also referred to in the sworn statement as having knowledge of the illicit affair with another woman. There is a specific allegations against petitioners 2 and 3 with regard to the alleged demand

¶80

of dowry. Though a vague reference to the petitioner^{No.3ismadeinthe}

¶81

//6//

¶82

sworn statement, such reference cannot constitute any^{oftheoffences} charged.

¶83

The statements of the listed witnesses also do not attribute any role to the 3'^'^ petitioner who is admittedly working in Hyderabad^and living separately from the accused No.1. There is no whisper^about the involvement of the 3'"'^ petitioner in either instigating^{thecommissionof} offence by the accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶84

The 3'"'^ petitioner has been roped in only to exert pressure on the petitioner. Omnibus allegations are made against the petitioner No.3, which cannot sustain the scrutiny of trial. That apart^{thisisanotherclassic} case where a complaint is filed by placing reliance on omnibus and vague allegations against the relatives of the husband.

¶85

It is also evident that, the dispute between the^{accusedNo.1andthe2'^^}

¶86

respondent appears to be the alleged illegal intimacy^between the accused No.1 and a woman in the village. The same cannot be a ground for roping in 3'’'^ petitioner as well as co-accused. Apart from the 3'’'^ petitioner being the son of the petitioners 1 and 2^{andbrotherofaccused} No.1, there is no specified role of the 3'"'^ petitioner in committing any of the offences.

¶87

In the matter of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others^Vs.State of Telangana and another^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at para 27 as follows :

¶88

(2025) 3 see 735

¶89

mu

¶90

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 well-recognised 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 exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal 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 appellant No. 1 have been living in^{differentcities} and have not 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.

¶91

In absence of specific role attributed to the accused it would be unjust if the accused is forced to go through the tribuiations 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. In varied instances criminai trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise must be discouraged.

¶92

On perusal of the record none of the allegations against 3"'^ petitioner can be considered as prima facie allegations which would require consideration of the trial Court. Maintaining a case against 3'"'' petitioner with the present set of facts and with the statements recorded of the listed witnesses, no purpose would be served in continuing the case against the 3'''^ petitioner.

¶93

//8//

¶94

/ /

¶95

The allegations against the 3^*^ petitioner is^{primafacievague,omnibus} and without any basis and without any corroborating^{evidencetodrive}

¶96

home the allegations against the 3'''^ petitioner.

¶97

On these consideration that CC.No.797 of 2023 on^thefile of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem against^{thepetitionerNo.3is} hereby quashed. It is left open for the other petitioners^{toraiseallthese} grounds before the trial court. Accordingly, the criminal^petition is partly allowed.

¶98

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶99

Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District.

¶104

One CC to Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC]

¶105

One CC to Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri J.Ravi Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies

¶106

GPC

¶107

sree

¶108

HIGH COURT DATED: 20/08/2025

¶109

ORDER

¶110

CRLP NO. 262 OF 2024

¶111

AND/^
m
s 2 3 SEP 2025
^ Current Secuon
ggSPATCV^S^^