AP High Court Quashes Cruelty FIR Against Husband, Says Same Evidence That Led To In-Laws' Acquittal Can't Subject Him To Ordeal Of Trial

The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed a cruelty and dowry demand case against husband, observing that the prosecution evidence had already been disbelieved during the trial of his parents who were acquitted of the same allegations and thus compelling the husband to undergo a separate trial would amount to  waste of Court's time. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 108]

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy allowed the husband's criminal petition seeking quashing of the proceedings pending against him, noting that:

"In the present case on hand also, the evidence of material prosecution witnesses recorded in split up case found untrustworthy and in that event, even if trial is to be proceeded with, same witnesses have to be examined and same evidence has to be let in, which is waste of time of the Court and there are no chances of conviction. When such is the case, there is no point in allowing the petitioner/A1 to face the entire ordeal of trial.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of petitioner/A1."

Originally, cognizance had been taken against the husband and his parents. However, the proceedings against the husband were split up, while the trial against the parents proceeded separately and ultimately ended in their acquittal after the trial court found the prosecution evidence unreliable.

The husband contended before the High Court that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegations even against the co-accused and that permitting a fresh trial against him would merely allow the complainant to improve her version and fill up lacunae in the evidence already disbelieved by the trial court.

The Court referred to the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 and observed that such powers may be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court also took note of the Supreme Court's decisions in Gautam Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2026) and Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2023) which emphasize that similarly situated accused should ordinarily be treated alike when the evidence against them is identical.

The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically bar the trial of an accused and relied upon decisions holding that evidence in one trial is not binding in a subsequent trial against another accused.

After examining the evidence of the complainant recorded during the earlier trial, the High Court found that there was no specific allegation that the husband had demanded additional dowry. The Court noted that the parties had lived together only for a brief period after marriage and that the complainant herself had admitted certain facts, including sending an email thanking the husband for not demanding dowry.

The Court further observed that the complainant had stated that the husband had applied for her visa to Australia and had arranged travel for her on multiple occasions, while she herself had chosen not to utilize the visa.

The Court also took note of subsequent proceedings initiated by the complainant under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 wherein the trial court had observed that she had suppressed the fact that permanent alimony had already been awarded to her in matrimonial proceedings.

Having perused the entire prosecution evidence recorded in the earlier trial, the High Court found that the testimony of the material witnesses had already been held to be untrustworthy and that the same witnesses would again be examined if the trial against the husband continued.

Holding that continuation of the proceedings would only subject the petitioner to the ordeal of trial without any real possibility of conviction, the Court quashed the criminal case pending against him.

Case Title: Dama Sudhir v. B. Sai Chaithanya & Another

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 1148 of 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Sodum AnveshaCounsel for the Respondents: VMR Legal; Public Prosecutor (AP)

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 108