D Anma, (A4) Vs The State- SHO

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No.4 and 5 in C.C.No.1034 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuram registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 509 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

¶23

2

¶24

brevity ‘the I.P.C’) and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the DP Act’).

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners either in the complaint lodged by L.W.2 or in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that there is no reference to any act attracting the offence punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C’. It is further submitted that, with a view to falsely implicate the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent made baseless allegations and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶27

Per contra , the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submit that there are specific allegations made by the 2^nd respondent against the petitioners, which attract the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C’. Hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed against the petitioners.

¶28

On perusal of the record, it is seen that a charge sheet was filed against the accused, including the petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 509, and 323 read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuram I Town Police Station. However, no

¶29

3

¶30

material has been placed before this Court to show that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the said offences.

¶31

Be that as it may, ex facie , even as per the statement of L.W.1, the allegation against the petitioners is only that they beat the maternal uncle of the 2^nd respondent, namely Eswaraiah, with their hands. The only accusation is that the petitioners physically assaulted the 2^nd respondent’s maternal uncle. However, no complaint has been lodged by the said maternal uncle. Therefore, there is no justification to prosecute the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C’.

¶32

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners and directing the learned Magistrate to take cognizance against the petitioners only for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ if cognizance has not already been taken.

¶33

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

¶34

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 11.02.2026 KMS

4

152

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO