The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing 1re i,,4emorandum of Grounds of Crrminai Petition and upon hearing 1re arguments of Sri Mohd Hassan, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M. Il ,tmachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responden \o.1 and of Sri AIi Faraz Farooqui, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.649 ot 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners- accused Nos 5 and 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.4610 of 2023 on the file of XV Additional Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under section 498-4, 406, 506 of IPC and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'The Act')

2. Heard lVlr.l\/lohd. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 6, Mr Ali Faraz Farooqui, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri lVl Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that accuseC Nos. 5 and 6 are wife and husband, wherein accused No.5 is sister in law and accused No.6 is brother of the husband of respondent No.2 The marriage of the respondent No.2 with the brother of the petitioner No.6 was 2 performed on 17.05 2021 as per their caste () ,lstoms After marriage her husband harassed her phys c ally and on 11 12.2022 her husband and in laws startei beating her stating that they want to kill her. Upon inslit.lation of the petitioners, husband of respondent No.2 snatcl ed her entire gold ornaments and other items and beat her irnd harassed her mentally and physically threatening lt )r with dire consequences threatening her and forcing her to take divorce. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the llresent case for the offences under Section 498-4,406, 5rl:) of IPC and Section 6 of the Act 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against titrl petitioners- accused Nos.S and 6 who are sister in law ilrd brother of husband of respondent No 2 lt is submitted lhat accused Nos.5 and 6 left to United Kingdom for the purr:rse of further studies and they have been living their own ife in United Kingdom, as such, the question of residing vith accused No l and respondent No.2 as mentioned in chl"ge sheet are absolutely false. Only omnibus and vague elegations are made against the petitioners being the brother and sister in I 3 law of husband of respondent No.2 and the petitioners were roped in a false case

5. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. Sfate of Telangana and anothe/ wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia held as under:

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to impticate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsuppofted by concrete evidence or pafticularised altegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases fo prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the presenl case, appellant Nos'2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appeltant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No-1 and respondent No 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into 'arn to25 SUPREME cou RT 173 4 criminal prosecution and the same woult.l be an abuse of the process of the law in the a|tsence of specific allegations made against e,ach of them. 28 The inclusion of Section 4ggA of the tpC by way of an amendment was intended t t curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her t,t,sband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as the,t:-have been a notable rise in matrimonial ai.,:putes across the country, accompanied by gtowing discord and tension within the inititit,on of marriage, consequenily. there has be en a growing tendency to misuse provision,,: like Section 4ggA of the tpc as a tc<,| for unleashing personal vendetta again:;t the husbanct and his famity by a wife. Mifing \ ague and generalised allegations during ruii,.r,Jriut conflicts, if not scrutinized, wilt lead t<, the n?isuse of legat processes ano an encouragement for use of arm twisting it,cfics by a wife and/or her famity. Soirel,,nes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 4ggA cf the IPC against the husband and his family in c,,rder to seek compliance with the unreasor able demands of a wife. Consequenily, this (,iurt has, time and again, cautioned u,rr,^, prosecuting the husband and his family in the a,bsence of a clear prima facie "u""'rg,r,ir,"t them. 31 Further, this Court in preeti Gupta vs. ,)rab of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 hetd tn"l ine courts have to be extremely careful and cau,r.:tus in dealing with.thege complaints and must tlke pragmatic realties into consideration vt tile 5 dealing with matrimonral cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed hy respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and hrs family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that there are triable issues and there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition 7 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition 6 \ -- F-:1

8. A perusal of the record discic ses that the petitioners-accused Nos 5 and 6 are sister in i w and brother of the husband of respondent No.2. lt is adrritted fact that the accused Nos.5 and 6 resided separarrly after their marriage and left to United Kingdom. As suc r there is no question of harassing the respondent No.2 ar<l there are no specific allegations against these petitioners C) rly vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petit if ners and no material was placed by the prosecution in,i h regard to specific instances and being relatives of l- er husband, respondent No.2 roped them in this case anc there are no specific overt acts established against the petiti:rrers.

9. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, :here are no specific details or descriptive particulars of nstances of harassment caused by the petitioners_accused lr os 5 and 6. Such generalised and sweeping accusations ur s upported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations canrt rt form basis for criminal prosecution. 7

10. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken tb invoke Section 4984 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his ( ( family members. Hence, the petitioners- accused Nos.5 and 6 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them

11. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of'law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 5 and 6 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed 8 !-- \. --] l \.1 12 Accordingly, thls Criminal petition i,; allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners_accust:,:l Nos.5 and 6 in C.C.No4610 of 2023 on the file of XV AcJitronal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are her,; jy quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous ir lplications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- G. JYOTHI ASIi STANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER \ To, Hyderabad

1. The XV Additional Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate, Hydera:ad 2. The Station House Officer, WpS SOUTH ZONE (Hydera.rad) potice Station, 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State c I Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri Mohd Hassan, Advocate [OpUC] 5. One CC to Sri Ali Faraz Farooqui, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] D K/DL I HIGH COURT DATED: 141081202s ORDER CRLP.No.649 of 2024 i\ -1; ,I z#\:\ _ cr rE:4.,' i (J .*st s. q IL t&- 9tht + f ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION IU o