HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1148 OF 2023

Between:

Dama Sudhir

… Petitioner(s)

Versus

B. Sai Chaithanya and another

...Respondents

* * * * *

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 17.06.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment/Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment/Order? Yes/No

JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

2

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

+ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1148 OF 2023

% 17.06.2026

# Between:

Dama Sudhir

… Petitioner(s)

Versus

B. Sai Chaithanya and another

...Respondents

!

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sodum Anvesha

^

Counsel for the Respondents

:

1. VMR Legal

2. Public Prosecutor (AP)

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1992 SC 604.

2. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 536.

3. 2023 INSC 829 : AIR 2023 SC 4444 : (2023) 9 Supreme

Court Cases 164.

4. AIR 2024 Supreme Court 4641.

5. 1999 LawSuit (AP) 1190.

6. (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 165.

7. 2005 SCC OnLine Ker 605 : (2006) 1 KLT 552 (FB) :

(2006) 42 AIC 461 : 2006 CriLJ 1922 (FB) : (2006) 2 CCR

445.

8. 2004 (2) KLT 1039.

9. 1992 Supreme (AP) 221.

This Court made the following:

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

3

Date on which Order/Judgment was

reserved

:

23.04.2026

Date on which Order/Judgment was

pronounced

:

17.06.2026

Date on which Order/Judgment was

uploaded on the website of the High

Court

:

17.06.2026

APHC010070292023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF J UNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1148/2023

Between:

1. DAMA SUDHIR, S/O DAMA SUBASH, R/O. 7,12TH CROSS,

KURINJI NAGAR, PONDICHERRY, RESIDING IN PERTH,

WESTERN AUSTRALIA -6010.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

A N D

1. B SAI CHAITHANYA, D/O JYOTHI BANDI, R/O. 2/135,

A.KOTHA CHERLOPALLE, PERUMALLAPALLE POST,

TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT

AMARAVATI.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

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 Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash

the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.249

of 2014 on the file of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati, Chittoor District which arose out of Cr.No.39 of 2010 of

Mutyalareddipalli Police Station, Chittoor District and pass

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

4

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 to dispense with

the filing of certified copy of the charge sheet in C.C.No. 249 of

2014 on the file of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati, Chittoor District and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

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 to stay all further

proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No. 249 of

2014 on the file of Ill Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati, Chittoor District which arose out of Cr.No.39 of 2010 of

Mutyalareddipalli Police Station, Chittoor District and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 to receive the

additional document viz.. Depositions and others documents as

additional document in CrI.P.No. 1148 of 2023 of this Hon'ble Court

and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. SODUM ANVESHA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. VMR LEGAL

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1148 OF 2023

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the

petitioner/Accused No.1, to quash the charge sheet in Calendar

Case No.249 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned III Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati of Chittoor District, arising

out of a case in Crime No.39 of 2010 of M.R.Palli Police Station,

registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1 and other accused,

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the DP Act, 1961’).

2. The allegations levelled as against the accused Nos.1

to 3 in the charge sheet, in brief, are that the marriage of

respondent No.1/de facto complainant and accused No.1 was

solemnized on 27.01.2008 as per their religious rites and caste

customs; that the accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have allowed

the respondent No.1/de facto complainant to enter into the

matrimonial home nor allowed her to go to Australia along with

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

6

accused No.1. It is the specific allegation against the accused Nos.1

to 3 that they were alleged to have subjected the respondent No.1/

de facto complainant to cruelty by causing mental and physical

harassment when their unlawful demand to pay the additional cash,

gold and gift was not fulfilled by her parents. The case was reported

to police on 25.03.2010 and a case in Crime No.39 of 2010

M.R.Palli Police Station was registered against the accused Nos.1

to 3 for the aforesaid offences and investigated into. After

completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge

sheet. Hence, the Charge Sheet.

3. Originally, subsequent to filing of Charge Sheet against

the accused Nos.1 to 3, the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, Tirupati took cognizance of the case of the offences

punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the

DP Act, 1961 and numbered as Calendar Case No.267 of 2010.

Vide Order dated 15.12.2016 passed by this Court in Criminal

Revision Petition No.3187 of 2016, case against accused No.1 was

split up and numbered as Calendar Case No.249 of 2014 on the file

of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

After full-fledged trial in Calendar Case No.267 of 2010, vide

Judgment dated 11.08.2017, the learned III Additional Judicial

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

7

Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, acquitted the accused Nos.2 and

3 of the aforesaid charges in terms of Section 248 (1) of CrPC. The

present Criminal Petition was filed by the petitioner/A1 seeking to

quash the proceedings

4. Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the

petitioner/A1 would submit that even accepting the entire

accusation is true, no offence under Section 498A of IPC has been

made out as against the petitioner/A1. Learned counsel would

further contend that originally the case was registered against the

petitioner/A1 and two others, and thereafter, the case was split up

as against the petitioner/A1 and in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3,

they were tried in Calendar Case No.267 of 2010 on the file of the

learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Vide Judgment dated 11.08.2017, the accused Nos.2 and 3 were

found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498 of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961 and they were

acquitted of the said charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1

would further submit that when once the trial had taken place in

respect of accused Nos.2 and 3, and the learned III Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati acquitted them basing on

the evidence brought on record, in those circumstances, even

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

8

proceeding as against the petitioner/A1 would be a futile exercise.

According to her, even as per the evidence on record no case is

made out as against the petitioner/A1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 would further contend

that during the cross-examination the respondent No.1/de facto

complainant has given a complete go-bye to the version given in the

chief-examination and made it clear to the extent that the

petitioner/A1 supported the respondent No.1/de facto complainant

for her further studies, and also sponsored ticket for her travel to

India and Australia. According to learned counsel, there is

absolutely no specific accusation that has been made as against

the petitioner/A1. Even basing on the evidence recorded in the

proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3, the learned III Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati acquitted them. Basing on

the same evidence, since there is no material as against the

petitioner/A1, allowing the petitioner/A1 to undergo entire ordeal of

trial, is nothing but abuse of process of law.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1/de facto complainant would contend that there is specific

evidence in the chief-examination that the petitioner/A1 was alleged

to have harassed the respondent No.1/de facto complainant, and

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

9

the same would make it abundantly clear that there is harassment.

According to learned counsel, irrespective of the fact that the trial in

Calendar Case No.267 of 2010 against the accused Nos.2 and 3

had taken place, mere acquitting the accused Nos.2 and 3 does not

meant that the proceedings as against the petitioner/A1 can be

quashed. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for State

representing respondent No.2 concurs with the submissions made

by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/de facto complainant

and prays the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A1, learned

counsel for respondent No.1/de facto complainant and learned

Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.2/

State. Perused the entire material available on record.

8. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of

this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent

abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the

Code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious

of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should

be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in

the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

10

embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or

otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is

pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State

of Haryana v. Ch.Bhajanlal and Ors.

1

, wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court held as under:

“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various

relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the

principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of

decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power

under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of

the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we

give the following categories of cases by way of illustration

wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse

of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,

clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible

guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of

myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) where the allegations made in the First

Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at

their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report

and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not

disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by

police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under

an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of

the Code;

1

AIR 1992 SC 604

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

11

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the

FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the

same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make

out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable

offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without

an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155

(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint

are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which

no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is

sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any

of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which

a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific

provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing

efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended

with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously

instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to private and

personal grudge.”

9. The essential ingredients, in order to prove an offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC, are that a married woman

must be subject to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his

relatives. Under explanation to the aforesaid section, any willful

conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

12

grave injury or danger to her life etc. or harassment of the woman

where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person

related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or

valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person

related to her to meet such demand. The marriage must be valid,

and the complaint cannot be based on vague or general allegations.

This implies that any deliberate action or behaviour by the husband

or his relatives that leads to severe mental or physical harm to the

woman falls under the purview of cruelty. Sections 3 and 4 of the

DP Act, 1961 criminalize giving, taking or demanding dowry.

Section 3 of the DP Act, 1961 covers the actual exchange of dowry,

while Section 4 of the DP Act, 1961 covers direct or indirect

demands for dowry. The essential ingredients to prove these

offences are a specific demand or exchange of money/property.

10. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that

though originally, cognizance was taken against the accused Nos.1

to 3, subsequently, case proceedings against the petitioner/A1 was

split up and numbered as Calendar Case No.249 of 2014. On the

face of the material on record, it is apparent that the case

proceedings against the accused Nos.2 and 3 in Calendar Case

No.267 of 2010, ended in acquittal vide Judgment dated 11.08.2017

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

13

after full-fledged trial. Now, the core question is, whether the

evidence of prosecution witnesses, who were examined in the

proceedings in Calendar Case No.267 of 2010 against the accused

Nos.2 and 3, which was held to be insufficient to bring home the

charge against them, is binding on the petitioner/A1 in Calendar

Case No.249 of 2014?

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 would contend

that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.2

and 3 basing on the evidence led by the prosecution and even the

true origin and genesis of the offences punishable under Section

498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961, as against

the accused Nos.2 and 3 was not proved. If fresh trial is conducted

in the proceedings pending as against the petitioner/A1, there would

be ample opportunity to the respondent No.1/de facto complainant

to improvise her version in order to fill up the lacunas occurred in

the evidence deposed by her in the earlier proceedings as against

the accused Nos.2 and 3, to convict the accused No.1. Therefore,

continuation of prosecution as against the petitioner/A1 in a

ritualistic manner will be a futile exercise and there is scope that the

case against the accused No.1 may end in conviction. Learned

counsel placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

14

in Gautam Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

2

, wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: (paragraph No.24)

“24. We feel this reasoning adopted applies with equal

force to the case of the present appellant. The major distinction

between the case of the present appellant and that of accused

No.2 (Dwarika Jangde) is the „last-seen‟ testimony of Raja Ram,

which, as we have discussed above, does not inspire confidence.

If that circumstance is excluded from consideration, the position of

the present appellant is similar enough to that of accused No.2

(Dwarika Jangde) that it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction

of the former, at least preponderantly on the basis of this

circumstance. In this regard, we refer to the observation made by

this Court in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat

3

:

“15. When there is similar or identical

evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by

ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court

cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In

such a case, the cases of both the accused will be

governed by the principle of parity. This principle means

that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike,

and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction

between the two accused, which will amount to

discrimination.”

(emphasis supplied)

Learned counsel further contends that the aforesaid view

expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed

Shaukat Ali Qureshi

3

has been reiterated in Yogarani v. State By

2

2026 SCC OnLine SC 536.

3

2023 INSC 829 : AIR 2023 SC 4444 : (2023) 9 Supreme Court Cases 164.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

15

the Inspector of Police

4

case. Learned counsel further contends

that there is no scope for the prosecution to improve upon the

evidence which was already and rightly so held to be insufficient to

bring home the charge against the accused. She placed reliance on

the proposition of law laid down in Thallapalli Rajaiah @ Pogula

Rajaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

5

this Court held as under:

(paragraph Nos.7 and 8)

“7. … Thus, this witness also excludes himself as an

eye-witness to the occurrence. All these witnesses have been

cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. It is therefore,

obvious, that there is no scope for the prosecution to improve upon

this evidence which was already and rightly so held to be

insufficient to bring home the charge against the accused.

8. The petitioner was said to be absconding, however,

he was arrested on 10.06.1999 and has been in jail as the bail

application is said to have been dismissed. Under the

circumstances, inasmuch as same witnesses have to be examined

there is no even a remote possibility of the trial ending in the

conviction of the petitioner herein. It would be abuse of the process

of the Court if the petitioner is compelled to go through the ritual of

facing the trial.”

12. It is pertinent to mention herein that in a case being

made up of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri and another v.

4

AIR 2024 SUPREME Court 4641.

5

1999 LawSuit (AP) 1190.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

16

State of Andhra Pradesh and another

6

, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held as under: (Paragraph No.31)

“A careful reading of the above noted judgments makes it

clear that the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to

interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and

should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it

is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not

disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations

contained in FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that

the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced

that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of

the Court. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear

in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal

process initiated against a person accused of committing offence

is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The

people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those

committing offences either against an individual or the society are

expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately

punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing

FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from

investigating the allegations contained in FIR or complaint or for

stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely

careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in FIR or

complaint disclose commission of some crime, then the High Court

must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to

complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from

passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should

not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply

because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of

FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from

making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment

6

(2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 165.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

17

which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation

of FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of

justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes

to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the

complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or

prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of

criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise

inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.”

13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/de facto

complainant would contend that acquittal of some of the co-accused

based on appreciation of evidence in their case, is no ground to bar

a criminal trial as the appreciation by the concerned judge in a

criminal trial is not binding when the latter case is tried in the case

of the other co-accused and it is for the learned trial judge to

appreciate the evidence adduced in the latter case. He placed

reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Moosa v. Sub

Inspector of Police

7

, the High Court of Kerala held as under:

(paragraph No.53)

“53. To quash the proceeding after referring to the

avert act of the petitioner with reference to the evidence tendered

in the judgment rendered in a case of a co-accused who faced

the trial and based on evidence therein case of the accused

cannot be done as the judgment in the earlier case is not

judgment relevant within the meaning of Sections 40 to 44 of the

7

2005 SCC OnLine Ker 605 : (2006) 1 KLT 552 (FB) : (2006) 42 AIC 461 : 2006 CriLJ

1922 (FB) : (2006) 2 CCR 445.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

18

Evidence Act. To do so will be in the realm of appreciation of the

evidence which has to be done by the trial Judge. In the above

view, with great respect we cannot agree with the proposition of

law thus stated in Arun Kumar v. State of Kerala

8

case. The

acquittal of some of the co-accused based on appreciation of

evidence in their case is no ground to bar a criminal trial as the

appreciation by the concerned judge in a criminal trial is not

binding when the latter case is tried in the case of the other co-

accused and it is for the learned trial judge to appreciate the

evidence adduced in the latter case. In that regard, possibly a

particular witness may or may not be believed and his reliability

may also be tested in the light of what he has stated in the earlier

case etc. But those are all matters for the trial Judge to do. All

that we want to say is that it will not preclude the trial of the case

for the mere reason that the co-accused were acquitted. This is

the principle that is stated by the Apex Court in Megh Singh v.

State of Punjab (2004 SCC Crl.58), Gorle S. Naidu v. State of

A.P. ((2003) 12 SCC 449 : AIR 2004 SC 1169) etc. Further, as

held by the Apex Court in Raju Rai’s case (2006 (1) KLT (SC)

(SN) 8 : 2005 (7) Supreme 459) the judgment in the case of the

co-accused is not at all a judgment relevant within the meaning of

Ss.40 to 44 of the Evidence Act. The Rule of estoppels as held

by the Apex Court is a rule of admissibility of evidence and which

does not bar the trial as such. Hence, it has to be held that the

power under S.482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to prevent the trial

of the petitioners/ accused solely by referring to the overt act

played by the accused as spoken to by the witnesses in the case

of the co-accused and this court cannot in exercise of its

jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr.P.C. quash the proceedings and

prevent the trial. Hence, the dictum laid down in Arun Kumar‟s

case to the extent it has taken a contrary view of what is stated

above, is not a correct law and the same is overruled. In the light

8

2004 (2) KLT 1039.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

19

of the above discussions, we may summarise the legal position

as follows:

(i) The inherent powers of the High Court reserved

and recognised under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure are sweeping and awesome; but such powers can be

invoked only

(a) to give effect to any order passed under the Code of

Criminal Procedure or

(b) to prevent abuse of process of any court or

(c) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Such powers

may have to be exercised in an appropriate case to

render justice even beyond the law.

(ii) Considering the nature, width and amplitude of the

powers, it would be unnecessary, inexpedient and imprudent to

prescribe or stipulate any straight jacket formula to identify cases

where such powers can or need not be invoked.

(iii) But such powers can be invoked only in

exceptional and rare cases and cannot be invoked as a matter of

course. Where the Code provides methods and procedures to

deal with the given situation, in the absence of exceptional and

compelling reasons, invocation of the powers under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not necessary or

permissible.

(iv) The fact that an accused can seek

discharge/dropping of proceedings/ acquittal under the relevant

provisions of the Code in the normal course would certainly be a

justifiable reason, in the absence of exceptional and compelling

reasons, for the High Court not invoking its extraordinary powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(v) In a trial against the co-accused the prosecution is

not called upon, nor is it expected to adduce evidence against

the absconding co-accused'. In such trial the prosecution cannot

be held to have the opportunity or obligation to adduce all

evidence against the absconding co-accused. The fact that the

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

20

testimony of a witness was not accepted or acted upon in the trial

against the co-accused is no reason to assume that he shall not

tender incriminating evidence or that his evidence will not be

accepted in such later trial.

(vi) On the basis of materials placed before the High

Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (which materials can be placed before the court in

appropriate proceedings before the subordinate courts) such

extraordinary inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure cannot normally be invoked, unless such

materials are of an unimpeachable nature which can be

translated into legal evidence in the course of trial.

(vii) The judgment of acquittal of a co-accused in a

criminal trial is not admissible under Sections 40 to 43 of the

Evidence Act to bar the subsequent trial of the absconding co-

accused and cannot hence be reckoned as a relevant document

while considering the prayer to quash the proceedings under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such judgments will be admissible only to

show as to who were the parties in the earlier proceedings or the

factum of acquittal.

(viii) While considering the prayer for invocation of the

extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to serve the ends of justice, it

is perfectly permissible for the court to consider the bona fides -

the cleanliness of the hands of the seeker. If he is a fugitive from

justice having absconded or jumped bail without sufficient reason

or having waited for manipulation of hostility of witnesses, such

improper conduct would certainly be a justifiable reason for the

court to refuse to invoke its powers under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

(ix) The fact that the co-accused have secured

acquittal in the trial against them in the absence of absconding

co-accused cannot by itself be reckoned as a relevant

circumstance while considering invocation of the powers under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

21

(x) A judgment not interparties cannot justify the

invocation of the doctrine of issue estoppel under the Indian law

at present.

(xi) Conscious of the above general principles, the

High Court has to consider in each case whether the powers

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deserve to

be invoked. Judicial wisdom, sagacity, sobriety and

circumspection have to be pressed into service to identify that

rare and exceptional case where invocation of the extraordinary

inherent jurisdiction is warranted to bring about premature

termination of proceedings subject of course to the general

principles narrated above.

14. A perusal of the evidence of respondent No.1/de facto

complainant, who was examined as P.W1 in Calendar Case No.267

of 2010, goes to show that subsequent to marriage, P.W1 stayed at

Pondicherry for 18 days and she along with petitioner/A1 stayed at

Chennai for a period of 10 to 12 days. She voluntarily deposed that

her mother bared the expenses for first two semesters and the

remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- spent by her in-laws and the

petitioner/A1. It is the specific evidence of P.W1 that she sent a mail

to the petitioner/A1 expressing her thanks for not demanding dowry.

She further deposed that the petitioner/A1 applied VISA for her from

Australia and basing on the VISA, the petitioner/A1 reserved the

ticket for three times. P.W1 specifically deposed that she

deliberately did not utilize the business VISA for her own concerns

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

22

and circumstances and on her requisition, spouse VISA was

cancelled by Australian Embassy. It is the further evidence of P.W1

that she did not go to Australia because of cancellation of VISA.

P.W1 further deposed in her cross-examination that the petitioner/

A1 gave her a City Bank Spouse Card and she had withdrawn huge

amounts. Though she added in her cross-examination that she

returned the said amount to her father-in-law, she fairly deposed

that she has no documentary evidence to that effect.

15. A perusal of entire evidence of P.W1 coupled with the

other material on record goes to show that there is no specific

accusation as against the petitioner/A1 that he demanded additional

dowry. Even as per the report of P.W1, the marriage between P.W1

and petitioner/A1 was solemnized on 27.01.2008 and the petitioner/

A1 went to Australia on 18.02.2008 i.e. 22 days after their marriage.

Therefore, hardly, the respondent No.1/de facto complainant lead

the marital life with the petitioner/A1 for 22 days. Even as per the

evidence of P.W1, it is the petitioner/A1, who applied for VISA for

P.W1 from Australia and basing on the VISA, the petitioner/A1

reserved the ticket for three times, but as per the evidence of P.W1,

it is she, who deliberately did not utilize the business VISA for her

own concerns and circumstances and on her requisition, the spouse

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

23

VISA was cancelled by Australian Embassy. The evidence of P.W1

further goes to show that subsequent to her marriage with the

petitioner/A1, her parents-in-law provided education expenses to

her.

16. Further, a perusal of the material on record goes to

show that the respondent No.1/de facto complainant filed

D.V.C.No.6 of 2023 against A1 to A3 under Sections 19 and 22 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the

file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

The learned Trial Judge vide Order dated 25.09.2025 observed that

the respondent No.1/de facto complainant suppressed the fact of

granting permanent alimony for a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs vide Order

dated 17.06.2017 passed in F.C.O.P.No.100 of 2016 by the learned

Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati and

she cannot be permitted to carry second round of litigation on the

same relief when she was granted permanent alimony.

17. This Court perused the entire prosecution evidence

recorded in C.C.No.267 of 2010. Though, the respondent No.1/de

facto complainant hurled so many allegations as against the

petitioner/A1, the evidence of P.W1 and the evidence of other

material prosecution witnesses recorded in Calendar Case No.267

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

24

of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Tirupati, has been found untrustworthy and accordingly,

the accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted of the charges. In

Janyavula Rambabu v. State, represented by Inspector of

Police, Jangareddigudem PS, West Godavari District

9

, the

accused in a Sessions Case filed an application to quash all the

proceedings, after being apprehended following the split up of the

case from the main case, where an order of acquittal was recorded.

While deciding the issue as to whether it is justifiable to proceed

with the trial, when there is lack of evidence implicating the accused

in the commission of offence, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the

absence of evidence to show the accused involvement in the

offence and the futility of proceeding with the trial, which would only

result in an abuse of the process of Court. In the present case on

hand also, the evidence of material prosecution witnesses recorded

in split up case found untrustworthy and in that event, even if trial is

to be proceeded with, same witnesses have to be examined and

same evidence has to be let in, which is waste of time of the Court

and there are no chances of conviction. When such is the case,

there is no point in allowing the petitioner/A1 to face the entire

9

1992 Supreme (AP) 221.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.1148 of 2023

25

ordeal of trial. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is

convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of petitioner/A1.

18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings in Calendar Case No.249 of 2014 pending on the file of

the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati

of Chittoor District, as against the petitioner/A1, are quashed.

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

pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

17

th

June, 2026.

Note:

LR Copy to be marked.

B/o.

DNB