LexMUPPIDI LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY & ORS. versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1715 : 2025 INSC 562 Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2025) 23 April 2025 [Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition of the appellants u/s.482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings against them. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Matrimonial disputes between the parties – In view of the compromise between them, the husband withdrew the case of restitution of conjugal rights and the de-facto complainant-wife withdrew her complaint before the police – Thereafter, the wife left for USA without intimating the husband and the dispute continued – Husband filed petition for dissolution of marriage and as a counterblast wife again lodged police complaint against accused including appellants-sister-in-law of the complainant, her husband and her father-in-law – Petition seeking quashing of proceedings by the appellants – Dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: There are omnibus and general allegations against the appellants that they too used to demand dowry or instigate accused in demanding dowry – Appellants reside at Hyderabad whereas complainant stayed at her marital house at Guntur at the relevant point of time and presently she is staying in USA – There is no specific date as to when the appellants visited Guntur and joined the accused in demanding dowry – Criminal case against the appellants quashed. [Paras 8, 9, 11, 12] Case Law Cited Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [2012] 9 SCR 641 : (2012) 10 SCC 741; Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. * Author 1716 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports State of Telangana & Anr. 2024 INSC 953 : [2024] 12 SCR 559 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Information Technology Act, 2002. List of Keywords Dowry demand; Restitution of conjugal rights; Dissolution of marriage; Leaving the company of husband; Practice of involving relatives of husband in dowry matters; Omnibus and general allegations; Quashing of the proceedings; Compromise. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in CRLP No. 15126 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., Siddharth C., Venkateswara Rao Anumolu. Advs. for the Respondents: Abhijit Basu, Sr. Adv., Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav, Keshav Singh, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Ms. Tatini Basu, Ms. Visheshta. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Leave granted. 2. In the present appeal the appellants have challenged the order passed by the High Court whereby their petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No. 359 of 2016 on the file [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1717 Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Guntur was dismissed. 3. The appellant No.1 (A4) is the sister-in-law of the de-facto complainant, appellant No. 2 (A5) is the husband of A4 and appellant No. 3 (A6) is the father-in-law of appellant No. 1 (A4). 4. The marriage between de-facto complainant (respondent no. 2) with Challa Poornananda Reddy (A1) was solemnised on 24.05.2014 at Guntur. After five months of the marriage, the de-facto complainant left the company of her husband and joined her parents to live at her parental house at Vidyanagar, Guntur. On persuasion, she joined her husband but again went back to her parental house and this act continued for some more time compelling the husband to send a legal notice followed by a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 18.02.2015. During the pendency of this proceeding, she lodged a complaint before the concerned police on 13.02.2016. However, on intervention of elders a compromise was arrived at on 02.04.2015 and the husband (A1) withdrew the case of restitution of conjugal rights and the de-facto complainant also withdrew her complaint before the concerned police. 5. She later left for USA without intimating the husband or his family
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.