Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati considered a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.290 of 2025. The petitioners were accused Nos.1 to 3 in a case registered at Tadepalli Police Station for alleged offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Petitioner No.1 was the husband of the deceased complainant, while petitioners 2 and 3 were her mother-in-law and father-in-law. The complainant lodged a report on 23.12.2022 alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. The marriage had broken down, and petitioner No.1 had earlier filed a divorce petition F.C.O.P.No.1578 of 2021 on grounds of desertion and cruelty. The complainant died on 28.01.2025 due to advanced-stage cancer at Indo-American Cancer Hospital. The divorce petition was closed as abated on 06.03.2025. The couple had a male child born in 2014, who remained in the custody of petitioner No.1. Before the criminal court, the father and other witnesses were found to be hearsay witnesses. The petitioners argued that continuation of proceedings served no purpose because the complainant had died and the witnesses were hearsay. They further contended that the complaint was filed after the divorce petition as a counterblast to harass the accused, and that cruelty simpliciter without intent to cause grave injury or to coerce unlawful demands was insufficient to constitute the offence. The court accepted these arguments. It relied on Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab to observe that a complaint filed after divorce proceedings appears retaliatory. It also referred to Digambar v. State of Maharashtra and Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat for the principle that cruelty simpliciter is not enough; there must be intention to cause grave injury or to drive the woman to suicide or to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands. The court found that the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal were attracted. Accordingly, the criminal petition was allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.290 of 2025 were quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were closed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS - Conditions for quashing - Criminal petition sought quashing of C.C.No.290 of 2025 for offences under 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act after complainant's death; court held continuation purposeless as complainant died and witnesses are hearsay; allowed petition and quashed proceedings (Paras 1-12).
B) Criminal Law - Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC - Ingredients of cruelty - Mere cruelty simpliciter not enough; must be intent to cause grave injury or drive woman to suicide or coerce unlawful demands; court relied on Nitin Ahluwalia, Digambar, Jaydeepsinh; allegations did not disclose such intent (Paras 8-11).
C) Criminal Law - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Retaliatory complaint - Complaint filed after divorce petition as counterblast to settle scores; court found parameters in Bhajan Lal attracted and complaint lacked bona fides (Paras 9-12).
D) Evidence - Hearsay Witnesses - Death of Complainant - Father and other witnesses hearsay; no useful purpose served continuing trial when sole complainant dead (Paras 7, 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed in view of death of complainant and retaliatory filing against divorce petition, and whether allegations meet ingredients of cruelty.
Final Decision
The Criminal Petition was allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.290 of 2025 (Crime No.902 of 2022 of Tadepalli Police Station) on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, were quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Law Points
- Cruelty simpliciter is insufficient to constitute offence under Section 498-A IPC
- intention to cause grave injury or to coerce unlawful demands required
- complaint filed as counterblast to divorce petition can be quashed
- death of complainant and hearsay witnesses make continuation purposeless
- Bhajan Lal parameters apply
Case Details
2026 LawText (AP) (02) 10
Criminal Petition No.6425 of 2025
Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao
S.Rajasekhar Kashyap; P. Akhila Naidu; E.Anjana Reddy
Sajja Venkata Naga Subhash Teja; Sajja Usha Sri; Sajja Raja Sekhar
The State of Andhra Pradesh; Sajja Bhargavi (died)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners/accused sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.290 of 2025 (Crime No.902 of 2022 of Tadepalli Police Station) pending before Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.
Filing Reason
The de facto complainant filed a complaint on 23.12.2022 alleging dowry harassment and cruelty; after complainant's death, petitioners contended no purpose would be served and that complaint was retaliatory against divorce petition.
Previous Decisions
The court recorded that petitioner No.1's divorce petition F.C.O.P.No.1578 of 2021 was closed as abated on 06.03.2025 due to complainant's death. No prior criminal court decision mentioned.
Issues
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed when complainant died and remaining witnesses are hearsay?
Whether complaint was filed as retaliation/counterblast to divorce petition and lacks ingredients of cruelty?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners contended that the complainant died and the remaining witnesses are hearsay, so continuation of proceedings serves no purpose.
The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed after the divorce petition as a counterblast to harass the accused, and cruelty simpliciter without intent to cause grave injury or unlawful demand is insufficient.
Ratio Decidendi
Cruelty simpliciter is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC; it must be done with intention to cause grave injury or to drive the woman to commit suicide or to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands. Where complaint is filed as retaliation/counterblast to divorce petition and complainant has died, continuing proceedings serves no purpose. Parameters in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal are attracted.
Judgment Excerpts
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 Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.290 of 2025 (Crime No.902 of 2022 of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District) on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’), Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for brevity ‘the D.P.Act’) .
Admittedly, in the instant case, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint after petitioner No.1 had filed a petition for grant of divorce, to counterblast the divorce petition filed by petitioner No.1.
In the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra 2 , and Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat 3 , it is observed that cruelty simpliciter is not sufficient to constitute an offence, but it must be shown that such cruelty was committed either with the intention to cause grave injury or to drive the woman to meet any unlawful demands.
For the above reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.C. No.290 of 2025 (Crime No.902 of 2022 of Tadepalli Police Station) on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- Cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, are hereby quashed.
Procedural History
The de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 23.12.2022 at Tadepalli Police Station, registered as Crime No.902 of 2022. Police filed charge sheet, leading to C.C.No.290 of 2025 before Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri. The complainant died on 28.01.2025. Petitioner No.1's divorce petition F.C.O.P.No.1578 of 2021 was closed as abated on 06.03.2025. Petitioners filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS seeking quashing, which was allowed on 04.02.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 498-A
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: 3, 4
