The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a 498A case against a husband’s mother and uncle, holding that the charge sheet contained no specific or precise allegations against relatives who lived away from the matrimonial home.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Amaravati: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a criminal petition and quashed proceedings under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the mother and the uncle of the husband, holding the allegations against them to be bald and omnibus. The proceedings against the husband and the other accused are not covered by the order. The allegations in the complaint are untested. [Pustela Jeevamma and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others]
A Single Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela quashed the proceedings against Accused Nos. 2 and 4 in C.C. No. 79 of 2023 pending before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu.
Background
The marriage took place on 21 December 2020. The wife alleged in her complaint that her parents gave Rs 10 lakh in cash, 10 tulas of gold and other gold items as dowry. After disputes at the matrimonial home in Kurnool, the couple separated, but she alleged continued harassment. She further alleged that when the couple’s infant daughter was taken to the husband’s home, a further Rs 10 lakh and a car were demanded and she was driven out. These are the complainant’s allegations and have not been tested at trial.
On her complaint, Crime No. 187 of 2022 was registered on 20 December 2022 at the Disha Women Police Station, Ananthapuramu District. The husband was arraigned as Accused No. 1, his mother as Accused No. 2, his brother as Accused No. 3 and his uncle as Accused No. 4. A charge sheet was filed, leading to C.C. No. 79 of 2023. The mother and the uncle approached the High Court to quash the proceedings against them.
Petitioners’ case
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate S.V. Ruthvik submitted that the mother lived elsewhere with the husband’s brother, and that the uncle lived at Nallakaluva Village, Atmakur Mandal, Nandyala District, away from the place where the complainant resided. He contended that the charge sheet did not attribute any specific act to either of them.
The petitioners relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The State was represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor Neelothpal Ganji.
What the Court said
The Court first examined the allegations in the charge sheet and found them lacking in particulars.
“This Court finds that the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the charge sheet do not contain any specific or precise allegations against the petitioners/accused, are bald in nature.”
The Court noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that courts must be extremely careful while dealing with complaints arising from matrimonial disputes, and applied the first category of the Bhajan Lal principles. It then held that the geographical separation of the relatives carries weight:
“The allegations of harassment against the husband’s close relatives, who have been living in different cities and have never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would have an entirely different complexion.”
“In the case on hand, as observed by this Court, the charge sheet does not contain any specific or precise allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4.”
Operative order
“Accordingly, upon a cumulative concatenation of the facts and the law, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in respect of Accused Nos.2 and 4, in C.C.No.79 of 2023, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu, are hereby quashed.”
Why the judgment matters
The order applies settled principles on omnibus allegations in matrimonial prosecutions to relatives who live away from the matrimonial home, and shows that a charge sheet which names such relatives without any specific act or role may not survive scrutiny at the quashing stage.
Case Title: Pustela Jeevamma and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others | Criminal Petition No. 5843 of 2023 | Order dated 23 July 2026 | Bench: Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela
Appearances: For the Petitioners: Advocate S.V. Ruthvik. For the State: Assistant Public Prosecutor Neelothpal Ganji.
READ JUDGEMENT: Pustela Jeevamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh