G.Abdul Rafi Vs State of AP and Anr on 12 Aug 2026

Posted on October 18 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held that, When the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been proved,it cannot be said that the allegation of torture can stand independently without the allegation of demand of dowry. Conviction u/s 498A IPC was set aside.

From Para 7.6

7.6 On a plain reading of the entire complaint/FIR, it appears that the allegation of torture was made against both A.1 and A.2 only for the demand of additional dowry. When the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been proved, as observed by learned Appellate Court, it cannot be said that the allegation of torture can stand independently without the allegation of demand of dowry. That is to say, when there is an allegation of torture upon a married woman by her husband and relatives on account of a demand for additional dowry, after conclusion of the trial, if it appears that the demand for dowry has not been proved, the allegation of torture itself cannot stand independently.

and from Para 7.9 and 7.10,

7.9 Considering the entire aspect of the matter, I am of the view that in a criminal case, when there is a clear allegation of torture upon a married woman on account of a demand for additional dowry, and after trial it has been disproved that there were no demand for additional dowry, the sole allegation of torture, as alleged to have been meted out by the husband and his relatives, cannot stand alone; moreover, delay in lodging FIR was not explained by prosecution in this case.
7.10 Under the above observation, in my view, the conviction of A.1 under Section 498-A of IPC, solely on the basis of the allegation of torture without any demand for additional dowry, cannot be maintainable.

G.Abdul Rafi Vs State of AP and Anr on 12 Aug 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Highlights:

Conviction in 2008.
Appeal disposed in 2009.
Criminal Revision in 2026.

One more fake case. Quashed by APHC.
Shield Turned into Weapon.

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Veerisetty Ramesh Babu Vs Veerisetty Ramadevi and Anr on 24 Apr 2020

Posted on October 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

A careful reading of the above Section 126(2) CrPC makes it manifest that all evidence relating to the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons- cases. Chapter-XX of the Cr.P.C. deals with trial of summons cases by Magistrates. It contains Sections 251 to 259 Cr.P.C. Section 254 thereof contemplates that the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence.
Therefore, a combined reading of Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 254 Cr.P.C. makes it absolutely clear that the evidence has to be taken up by the Court in such proceedings in the presence of the opposite party or when his presence is dispensed with in the presence of his pleader and recording evidence in the form of taking evidence affidavit is not contemplated and it is not permissible under law.
It is significant to note that clause (2) of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, clearly mandates that the procedure contemplated under Cr.P.C. or the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. even before a Family Court. Therefore, even the Family Courts Act, 1984 also mandates that the procedure contemplated under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. which is part of Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. in recording the evidence shall be followed when the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are initiated before the Family Court.

Veerisetty Ramesh Babu Vs Veerisetty Ramadevi and Anr on 24 Apr 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Cases here.

Karnam Upendra Vs K Parameswari and Anr on 24 Mar 2026

Posted on October 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

In paras 8 and 9,

8. The first limb of the challenge relates to the manner in which evidence was received by the Trial Court. The answer to this issue must necessarily be gathered from the language employed in Section 126(2) Cr.P.C(Section 145 (2) of BNSS). The provision stipulates that “all evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.” The legislature has consciously employed the expression “shall”, thereby making the requirement mandatory in nature. The provision does not contemplate evidence being tendered by way of affidavits nor does it contain any enabling provision authorising the Court to substitute oral chief-examination with evidence affidavit.
9. The statutory mandate becomes more evident when Section 126(2) (Section 145 (2) of BNSS) is read harmoniously with Section 254 Cr.P.C(Section 277 of BNSS)., which prescribes the procedure for recording evidence in summons cases. Chapter IX of the Code envisages that evidence is to be adduced before the Court and recorded in the presence of the opposite party. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, which permits examination-in-chief by way of affidavit, cannot be imported into proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C(Section 144 of BNSS) in the absence of an express statutory provision.

Karnam Upendra Vs K Parameswari and Anr on 24 Mar 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Cases here.

Nanduri Mahesh Babu Vs UOI and Ors on 17 Feb 2025

Posted on September 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 14 and 15,

14. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the application of the petitioner, and issue fresh passport for a period of three (03) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the criminal case Crime No.133 of 2020 on the file of Ghantasala Police Station and registered as C.C.No.398 of 2020 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Movva, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission (NOC) from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court.

Nanduri Mahesh Babu Vs UOI and Ors on 17 Feb 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Passport Judgment is here.

Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs UOI and Ors on 04 Aug 2022

Posted on September 12 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of AP High Court held that,

From Paras 5, 6 and 7,

5. In view of the fact that the 2nd respondent has been issuing such certificates to citizens staying abroad, the 2nd respondent cannot take the stand that since it is a voluntary service, there cannot be any direction to the 2nd respondent to issue or not to issue such certificates.
6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to issue a police clearance certificate after recording all the cases filed against the petitioner which have come to the notice of the 2nd respondent. This can be done only after the 3rd respondent has informed the 2nd respondent in writing about the case, which is pending before the 3rd respondent.
7. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent is granted two weeks time to forward all the details of the cases against the petitioner available with the 3rd respondent. Upon receipt of such information, the 2nd respondent, within four weeks thereafter, shall issue a certificate as mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs UOI and Ors on 04 Aug 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/andhra-pradesh-high-court-authorities-police-clearance-certificate-voluntary-service-citizens-abroad-206195

Index of Judgments is here.

Vennapusa Mythri Vs The State of AP and Ors on 3 Oct 2023

Posted on September 12 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of AP High Court held that, when a representation has been filed for Police Clearance Certificate, it is obligatory on the respondent-police to issue the said certificate mentioning the details of the cases in which petitioner is involved.

A perusal of the material on record goes to show that on the application put up by the petitioner, the Inspector of Police conducted enquiry and during the course of enquiry it was noticed that the petitioner herein was accused in Crime No.488 of 2022. Further, the petitioner was also arrested and released on bail. According to the respondent police, a Criminal case is under investigation.
Irrespective of the said fact, when a representation has been filed for Police Clearance Certificate, it is obligatory on the respondent-police to issue the said certificate mentioning the details of the cases in which petitioner is involved.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the respondent police are directed to issue a Police Clearance Certificate on or before 09.10.2023 mentioning the details of crime, if any, if the petitioner herein is involved.

Vennapusa Mythri Vs The State of AP and Ors on 3 Oct 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Judgments is here.

A.S.S.K.Durga Prasad Vs NCDRC and Ors on 24 Jun 2026

Posted on July 7 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of AP High Court held that Advocate services do not come under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and as such litigation against such services is not maintainable.

From Para 4,

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy about the maintainability of the complaint against an advocate for alleged deficiency in rendering legal services, under the Consumer Protection Act.
5. The law is well settled that an Advocate/lawyer in connection with the service rendered by him in legal side is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.

Finally from Paras 9 and 10,

9. In Bar of Indian Lawyers (supra) the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had taken a view that the deficiency of, in service rendered by an advocate fell under the Consumer Protection Act and that the compliant was maintainable. The Hon‘ble Apex Court held that the view taken was not correct and set aside the order of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. It was held as under:
―82. Accordingly, the view taken by the NCDRC to the effect that in respect of deficiency in service rendered by the lawyers, a complaint in Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 would be maintainable, is incorrect and stands overruled.
10. In view of the aforesaid, we are of view that the complaint filed by the writ petitioner against the lawyer/advocate under the Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable. The same has rightly been dismissed. No interference is required with all the three orders impugned in the writ petition.

A.S.S.K.Durga Prasad Vs NCDRC and Ors on 24 Jun 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index

Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018

Posted on May 28 by ShadesOfKnife

I came across the following snippet of post on 23-May-2026.

Pulled out the above Order by the High Court of Telangana, with little difficulty.

Jivani Sahil Firoz Ali Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 04 May 2026

I went to the decision relied on by this case/judge in Para-3 and obtained this wonderful common Order with respect of FSS Act 2006 by the erstwhile Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh. When I read through it, I visualized the stark similarities between FSS Act 2006 and Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (amended in 1984 and 1986), which I intend to take full advantage in a future PIL, by making a comparison of appointment, duties, powers of a Food Safety Officer vis-a-vis that of the Dowry Prohibition Officer. There is possibility of getting State police off the offences under DP Act, just like APHC held in this Order (gainfully relying on various other High Court judgments)

Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018

The efforts to be invested in this direction connect to this page here.

Bagadi Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Posted on February 21 by ShadesOfKnife

The Andhra Pradesh High Court examined the legality of a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner in a matrimonial-related criminal case.

The Court held that authorities cannot issue an LOC routinely. The Court emphasised that an LOC affects personal liberty and must satisfy the conditions laid down in the Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines. Since the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and the case did not fall within exceptional categories, the Court directed withdrawal of the LOC.

Before reproducing the relevant extracts, the Court examined the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the statutory guidelines governing Look-Out Circulars.

Relevant Extracts from the Judgment:

“14. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights, it is the fundamental of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign countries. One’s such personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged. [See; Article 21 Constitution of India].”
“14. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.”
“17. Sub-para J of Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 mandates that a Look-Out Circular shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the Originator and that no Look-Out Circular shall be deleted automatically.”
“18. Sub-para L of the circular dt. 22.02.2021 indicates that Look-Out Circulars could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India…”
“20. Issuance of LOC, in the peculiar facts of this case, is unwarranted.”
“21. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the 5th respondent shall withdraw the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.319 of 2024… forthwith.”

Decision

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the authorities to withdraw the Look-Out Circular forthwith. The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the Magistrate for travel permission in the pending criminal case.

Bagadi Santosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Look Out Circular notices is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022

Posted on February 20 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 10 and 11,

10. The observations made in both the decisions are similar and they go to show that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
11. In the instant case, Non-Bailable-Warrant was issued against the petitioner/A-4 as she was shown absconding in the charge sheet and it is not the case that proclamation proceedings were initiated and thus, the petitioner cannot at all be termed as a ‘proclaimed offender’ so as to disentitle her from getting the relief of anticipatory bail. Thus, as per the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since proclamation proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. are not initiated, the present petition is maintainable.

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification

G.Abdul Rafi Vs State of AP and Anr on 12 Aug 2026

Veerisetty Ramesh Babu Vs Veerisetty Ramadevi and Anr on 24 Apr 2020

Karnam Upendra Vs K Parameswari and Anr on 24 Mar 2026

Nanduri Mahesh Babu Vs UOI and Ors on 17 Feb 2025

Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs UOI and Ors on 04 Aug 2022

Vennapusa Mythri Vs The State of AP and Ors on 3 Oct 2023

A.S.S.K.Durga Prasad Vs NCDRC and Ors on 24 Jun 2026

Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018

Bagadi Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Decision

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022