LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/mamidi-anil-kumar-reddy-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-20240205/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
5 February 2024
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2024
Bench
Vikram Nath, Satish Chandra Sharma
Citation
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 252 : 2024 INSC 101
Acts & Sections
CrPC IPC Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 2 S.C.R. 252 : 2024 INSC 101
Issue for consideration
The High Court, if justified in refusing to quash the docket order which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of the docket order – Matter pertaining to matrimonial disputes, wherein the High Court refused to quash the docket order which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the husband and in-laws for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Correctness: Held: A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses’ and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations against the husband and in-laws are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the husband and in-laws – Material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the husband and in-laws in the commission of the offences – Husband and inlaws approached the High Court on inter alia grounds that the proceedings were re-initiated on vexatious grounds and even highlighted the commencement of divorce proceedings by the wife, as such the High Court had a duty to consider the allegations with great care and circumspection so as to protect against the danger of unjust prosecution – Thus, the material on record being wholly insufficient to proceed against the husband and in-laws, the impugned orders and the docket order set aside and the criminal proceedings against the husband and in-laws quashed. [Paras 14, 17, 18]

Keywords: Docket Order · Reopening/re-initiating criminal proceedings · Matrimonial disputes · False implication · Statement of witnesses · Compromise · Lok Adalat · Divorce · Vexatious grounds · Unjust prosecution

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order 1. Leave granted. 2. Both the appeals are being disposed of by the present common order. 3. The present appeals arise out of orders dated (i) 11.11.2022 in Criminal Petition No. 5710 of 2021 (the ‘Impugned Order I’) and (ii) 23.11.2022 in Criminal Petition No. 2768 of 2022 (the ‘Impugned Order II’), passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (collectively referred to as the ‘Impugned Orders’). 4. Vide the Impugned Orders, the High Court refused to quash the Docket Order dated 20.07.2021 which reinitiated criminal proceedings against the Appellants for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 of
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →