[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Somula Sathyavathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+CRIMINAL PETITION No.9700 OF 2023
%30.04.2025
#Between:
Somula Sathyavathi, W/o.Jagan Mohan Reddy, aged about 38
years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.D.No.23/358, Islampuram Street,
Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District and 2 others.
...Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi, Through the Station House
Officer I Town Police Station, Proddatur, Kadapa District and
another
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.Sri. V.Nitesh
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Learned Public Prosecutor
2. Sri. Sarala Neelagiri
The Court made the following:
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2013(5) SCC 762
2. (2012) 08 AP CK 0057
3. 2014 INSC 21
4. Criminal Appeal No.1487 of 2025, decided on 01.04.2025
This Court made the following:
//2//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+CRIMINAL PETITION No.9700 OF 2023
%30.04.2025
#Between:
Somula Sathyavathi, W/o.Jagan Mohan Reddy, aged about 38
years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.D.No.23/358, Islampuram Street,
Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District and 2 others
...Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi, Through the Station House
Officer I Town Police Station, Proddatur, Kadapa District and
another
...Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 30.04.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
Yes/No
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
//3//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9700 of 2023
ORDER :
The petition is filed challenging the order passed in Crl.RP.No.43
of 2019 in CRLMP.No.1533 of 2017 in CC.No.13 of 2015 passed
by the learned II Additional District and Sessions, Kadapa at
Proddutur.
2. The petitioners were arraigned as Accused Nos.4 to 6 in
CC.No.13 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Proddutur. The prosecution has filed petition under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., and sought to add respondents 4 to 7 therein
to the array of accused. The learned Magistrate vide order dated
11.07.2018 partly allowed the petition filed by the prosecution and
held that petitioners 4 to 6 are added as Accused Nos.4 to 6 as
prima facie allegation is made out by the defacto complainant.
3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision
Petition before the learned II Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur. The learned Sessions Judge had
dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners primarily on
the ground that PW.1 in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
has disclosed the involvement of the petitioners in the commission
of offence. As such, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners.
//4//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
charge sheet was filed by Proddutur I Town Police on 12.11.2007
and the police filed the charge sheet and have stated that there is
no evidence against accused Nos.2 to 6 and deleted accused
Nos.2 to 6 from the list of accused vide proceedings dated
16.11.2007.
5. On the complaint of the 2nd respondent the Superintendent of
Police, Kadapa had directed the SDPO, Proddutur to entrust the
case to Inspector of Police, Proddutur Urban for reinvestigation
vide Memo dated 30.11.2007. The LW.17 filed the requisition
before the Court and the learned Magistrate accorded permission
for reinvestigation on 08.07.2008.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned
Magistrate does not have power to direct reinvestigation and
under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can only direct
further investigation and not reinvestigation. Reliance is placed on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi Vs.
Irshad Ali @ Dipak and others1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that no investigation agency is empower to conduct a fresh,
denovo or reinvestigation in relation to the offence for which it has
1
2013(5) SCC 762
//5//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
already filed the report in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., It is
only upon the orders of the Higher Courts empower to pass such
orders that aforesaid investigation can be conducted, in which
event the Higher Courts will have to pass a specific order with
regard to the fate of the investigation already conducted and the
report so filed before the Court of the learned Magistrate. It is
submitted that the Magistrate Court could have permitted the
investigating officer to conduct further investigation but not
reinvestigation.
7. That apart, it is also the case of the petitioners that there is
absolutely no evidence against the petitioners which would attract
the provisions of Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that except for the vague
reference of harassment by the petitioners made by the LW.1 in
her statement there are no specific details. It is submitted that the
petitioners are sisters of the 1 st accused and were married much
prior to the marriage of the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent
and were living with their respective families separately in different
towns.
8. It is also submitted that the petitioners are roped in as accused
only to pressurize the 1st accused and to harass the petitioners. It
//6//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
is submitted that initial charge sheet was filed on 12.11.2007 and
the police have purportedly conducted reinvestigation on the
directions of the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa and filed
additional charge sheet on 13.07.2012 and arrayed accused 2 and
3 i.e., the parents of 1st accused. Thereafter, the prosecution has
filed a petition after almost ten years after filing the initial charge
sheet and sought to array the petitioners as accused.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that
the investigating officer is duty bound to notify the complainant
while deleting the names of the persons against whom complaint
is made from the array of accused. It is also submitted that there
are specific allegations against the petitioners, as such, the police
could not have deleted the petitioners from the array of accused.
10. It is also stated that, when specific allegations are made in the
complaint and in the statement of LW.1/PW.1 the allegations
would have to be tried before the Trial Court and that the case
ought not to be considered for quashing by invoking the powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
11. The learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on Kotla
Hari chakrapani Reddy Vs. The State of A.P. 2, this Court has
2
(2012) 08 AP CK 0057
//7//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
held that there is no provision in law for deleting an accused from
the case by the police officers, investigating officer or the
Superintendent of the Police district concerned and that it is for
the investigating officer to place all the material before the
Magistrate. Without there being judicial decision on cognizance,
no police officer can unilaterally delete or direct deletion of an
accused from a case. Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
others3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the accused
subsequently impleaded are to be treated as if they had been
accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence.
The difference in the degree Section 319 CrPC would be the
same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of
satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent
accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already
commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of
such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly
summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result
in delay of the trial therefore the degree of satisfaction for
summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be
different. Satbir Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others4. the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that on the facts of the case the
3
2014 INSC 21
4 Criminal Appeal No.1487 of 2025, decided on 01.04.2025
//8//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
involvement of the respondents was not found in the subsequent
enquiries conducted by the DSP, Karnal, DSP, HQ, Karnal and
DSP, Karnal-2. However, as many as 14 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution. On the facts of that case the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court
as the involvement of the respondents are otherwise cannot be
solely relied upon the reports of the Deputy Superintendents of
Police.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material on record.
13. On account of marital dispute between the 1st accused and the 2nd
respondent, a complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent against
the 1st accused and the relatives of the 1st accused. The complaint
was filed alleging that on 26.09.2007, A1 drove out LW.1 from the
house and A1 was pressing to give divorce to LW.1. It is also
alleged that A1 had assaulted LW.1, as a result of which LW.1
sustained contusions.
14. The petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 6 on filing of the
petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by the prosecution. The
learned Magistrate has simply stated that the report given by
//9//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
PW.1 to the police and Section 161 CrPC statement of some of
the witnesses i.e., PW.1, the defacto complainant, father and
mother of defacto complainant disclosed the involvement of
petitioners in commission of the alleged offences. PW.1 in her
statement before police has given vague reference to the
petitioners without any specific details. However, in the chief
examination before the Court, the LW.1/PW.1 has stated several
things which do not find place in the complaint or in the statement
before the police. These contradictions cannot form basis for
arraying the petitioners as accused. These contradictions would
have to be considered as improvements of the statement of the
complaint after a period of ten years of initial allegations. The
petition filed by the prosecution to array the petitioners as accused
is after a period of 10 years after laying charge sheet against
accused No.1 alone.
15. As seen from the charge sheet, it is stated that the Superintendent
of Police, has directed reinvestigation and LW.17 thereafter filed a
memo seeking permission of the Court for reinvestigation and that
the learned Magistrate accorded sanction for reinvestigation in the
year 2008. The police after reinvestigation have arrayed the
parents of accused No.1 as accused Nos.2 and 3. In so far as, the
proceedings of reinvestigation are concerned and the permission
//10//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
accorded by the Magistrate, the same are not before this Court to
determine whether such proceedings could have been issued or
not. As such, this Court is not inclined to venture into that aspect.
16. In so far as, arraying the petitioners as accused is concerned on a
petition filed by the prosecution under section 319 of Cr.P.C.,
admittedly, the allegations in the complaint and the statement of
LW.1/PW.1 before the police under section 161 CrPC, is vague,
omnibus and bereft of details. These omnibus allegations making
sweeping reference to the involvement of the petitioners without
specific details such as date and place cannot sustain the scrutiny
of trial. Such allegations could not qualify for tested before a Trial
Court.
17. Admittedly, the petitioners are sisters of the Accused No.1 and
were married much prior to the marriage of the Accused No.1.
Soon after their marriage they were residing with their respective
families in different towns away from the marital home of the 2 nd
respondent and the Accused No.1. This case on hand is another
classic case where the sisters of the husband are roped in as
accused for wreaking vengeance against the 1st accused.
18. Married sisters living with their respective families separately in
different towns cannot be roped in as accused without any specific
//11//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
allegations and without any details of the specific allegations in the
complaint or in the statement before the Police under Section 161
of Cr.P.C., Any improvements made by PW.1 before the Court
would have to be considered as an after thought only with a view
to implicate the petitioners as accused.
19. In this case, the police have filed a charge sheet in the year 2012,
thereafter, the police have reportedly conducted reinvestigation of
the case, which is not legally permissible if it is reinvestigation and
have arrayed the parents of 1st accused as accused Nos.2 and 3.
The effort made by the 2 nd respondent by improving her statement
during the course of chief examination before the Court is only
with a view to implicate the petitioners. The prosecution has filed
petition in the year 2017, after almost three years after deposition
of 2nd respondent as PW.1 before the Trial Court.
20. Section 319 of Cr.P.C., falling under Chapter XXIII would deal with
the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty
of offence. This would not ipso facto entitle the PW.1 to introduce
fresh and omnibus allegations against the petitioners during the
course of her examination in chief. The improvements in her
statement in the chief examination have to be considered as made
//12//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
with a predetermined scheme for arraying the petitioners are co-
accused.
21. On these facts and circumstances, the order passed by the
learned Magistrate deserves to be set aside and the revision
petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. This Court is of
the considered view that implicating unconnected blood relatives
of husband of a estranged wife in criminal proceedings initiated
under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act is nothing but abuse of the due process of law and
accordingly criminal petition is allowed.
22. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
30.04.2025
LR copy to be marked
B/o.KGM
//13//
CRLP.No.9700 of 2023
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9700 of 2023
Dated 30.04.2025
LR COPY
KGM
[ad_2]
Source link