The High Court · 2025

criminal Petition filed under section 482 of Cr P C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the HighCourtmaybepleased,toQuashtheChargeSheetbearingC.C.No.633of 2O22, date4.O4.O8..2O22, on the file of the Judicial First class Magistrate at Adilabad,by arraying the petitioners as Accused No 1, 2 and 3 respectively, in connection with crime No.55 0f 2022. dated.16.O7.2022, on the file of wPS Adilabad, Adilabad District., registered for the offences under section 498-4, {PC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act of 1961' l.A. NO: 1OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C., praying tha t in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all rurther proceedings in furtherance of C.C No.633 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adilabad This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusir g the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition and upon hearing tlre arguments of Sri R. SUSHANTH REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner anc the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No-1 and None Appea'ed for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIOEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.147 of 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 492 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in c.c.No.633 of 2022 on the fire of the Judiciar First crass Magistrate at Adilabad (for short 'trial Court,), pertaining to Crime No.55 of 2022 of w.P.s. Adilabad, registered for the offences under Section 498-4 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ,lpC,) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196'l (for short ,the Act,).

2. Heard Mr. R.sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. lnspite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of de facto complainant. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the mother and father of petitioner-accused No.1 .

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent_de faclo complainant was married to accused No.1 on os.o6.2oz1. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. After two months from their marriage, as the petitioner-accused No.1 harassed rhe de facto 2 complalnant demarrding additional dowry' the parerrts of de facto complainant have given two tulas of gold. Thereafter, tre spouses lived happily for some days. Again in February, 2022, on he instigation of petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner-accur ed No.1 started harassing the de facto complainant demanding additionirl dowry, beat her inhumanly and driven her out of the matrimonial hom -.. The petitioner- accused No.1 used to suspect her character and fr:quently used to check her mobile. Though panchayats were held in March and April' 2022 in the presence of caste elders and counselling l/as conducted at saki center, Adilabad in June, 2022, lhe petitioners dirl not change their attitude and refused to accept lhe de facto complainarrt unless and until their demand of additional dowry was fulfilled. Ht'nce, the present complaint. 5 Submissions of learned cou nsel for the titi )ners:

5.1. The petitioners are innocent and they have beetr falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes. Though the marriage nad happened on

05.06.202l,thepresentcomplaintwaslodgedon23')6'2022andcrime was registered on 16.07.2022. The reason for such rlelay in lodging the complaint and registration of crime was not explained lf really there was harassment, the de faclo complainant should have complained much earlier 3

5.2. The de facto complainant expressed unhappiness about her marriage with petitioner_accused No. i as she is working as a Government Teacher and the petitioner_accused No..l is unemployed. The de facto complainant frequenfly spoke to one person by name Vishwa. On knowing the same, when the petitioner_accused No.1 confronted the de facto complainant on 27.02.2022, she admitted the same and promised that she wourd not repeat it again in future. Since the said incident created differences between the spouses, a panchayat was held on 27.03.2022 in the presence of elders. ln the said panchayat, the de facto comprainant has given an undertaking that she wourd not repeat the same rnspite of the said undertaking, she continued tarking to said Vishwa which further created differences between spouses.

5.3. The de facto comprainant reft the matrimoniar home without informing anyone. lnspite of several requests made by the petitioners, the de facto comprainant did not return to matrimoniar home. As such, the petitioner-accused No.1 was constrained to fire divorce petition before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad vrde H M.O.p.No.33 of 2022. On receipt of summons in the said divorce petition, the de facto complainant has rodged the present compraint against the petitioners as a counterblast. The petitioners_accused Nos.2 and 3 are staying away from the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1, therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the de facto \ 4 complainant. Except bald allegations' no specific overt a Is are attributed to the petitioners herein, hence, the ingredients of 'lffences alleged he praYerl to quash the against them are not made out Thus, proceedings against the petitioners'

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prlsecutor submits that the petitioners herein have harassed the de f :cfo complainant demanding additional dowry after her marriage with t'etitioner-accused No.'t and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. There are specific allegations against the petijioners and all the allegations levelletj in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit c ase to quash the proceedings at this stage Accordingly' she prayeJ to dismiss the petition 7 For the sal'ie of convenience, Section 498-4 c f IPC is extracted hereunder 498A. Husband or relative of husband ol a woman subjecting her to crueltY.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the \usband of a woman, subiects such woman to cruelty shall be ltunished with impriisotnmeit for a term which may extend to thr )e years and shal/ a/so be tiable to fine. Explanation - For the p tpose of this section, "cruetty" means-G)any wilful conduct whrL h is of such a nature as is tikety to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause cirave iniury or danger to life' limb or hr alth (whether mental ttr physical) of the woman; or(b)harassmet of the woman where :ttch harassment is with a view to coercittg her or any 5 person related to her to meet any unlav,lful demand for any propefty or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

8. ln the judgment of Sfate of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ..The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Afticle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C. can be exercised by the High Coud either to prevent abuse of the process of any Courl or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may nol be posslb/e lo lay down any precise, ctearly defined and sufficien y channelised and inftex'ibie guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of miriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the altegations made in the First tnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First lnformation Repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.t.R. do not disc/ose offence, justifying an investigation by police a --cognizable offtcers -under Section 156(1) of the Code Txcept inder an order of a Magistrate within the puNiew of Section lS5(2) of the Code: (3) Where the uncontrovefted a egations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppott of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the altegalions in the FtR do not conslitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non_cognizable offence, no_ investigation is permitted by i police officei without al order of a Magistrate as contemptaied under Section 1SS(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FtR or complaint are so absurd and inheren y improbable on the basis which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there s sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 'of ' togl scc 1cril l2r, 6 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted n any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (u,der which a criminat proceeding is instituted) to the in.litution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where ther,t is a specific provisictn in the Code or the concerned A )i, providng efficacbus redress for the grievance of the aggriev )d pady; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly atlended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreakinrt vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

9. ln the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana ?nd others v. Sfate of Telangana and anothef, the Hon'ble Supreme lourt, at paragraph Nos.31 and 32 held that: "31. Fufther, this Couft in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 held that the coutls have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these compl.ints and must take pragmatic realties nlo consideratron while dealing with matimonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassitent by the f,usbartd's close relatives who had been living tr lifferent cities and never visited or rarely visited the plac: where the complainant restded would have an enti ely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant .re required to be scnrtinized with great care and circumspection

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion lhat the ,npugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to sett/e personal scores and gr dges againit appe ant No.1 and his family members i.e., appel ant Nos.2to 6 herein Hence, the present case at hand falls with n category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan I al Therefore, the Hiqh Cou17, n the present case. erred in nat exercising the power.; available to it under Section 482 CrP( and thereby failed ro prevent abuse of the Courl s process by :ontinuing the criminitl prosecution against the appellants.''

10. In numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Cou t, while dealing with similar cases held that making vague and generalis(,ci allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and irn encouragement for use of arm wisting tactics by a ' 202+ INsc 9s: 7 wife and/or her family- Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-,4 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 pima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members.

11. ln the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between lhe de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1. Though the marriage had happened on 05.06.2021 , lhe present complaint was lodged by the de facfo complainant against the petitioners herein on 23.06.2022 and crime was registered by the Police on

16.07.2022. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint was not explained by the de facio complainant. The lnvestigating Officer has also failed to explain the delay in registration of crime. lt is also an admitted fact that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the mother and father of petitioner-accused No.1, are staying away from the family of de facfo complainant and petitioner-accused No.1 .

12. On the face of the record, it is evident that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, other than stating that they instigated petitioner-accused No.1 in harassing the de facto complainant by demanding additional B dowry. Not even a single instance of harassment or cru:ity or demand of dowry had been referred against the petitioners-accustd Nos.2 and 3. lt is also not the case of the de facfo complainant that any dowry article was handed over to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. The whole genesis of allegati,:ns levelled in the FIR revolves arc und the husband and his conduct. Merely mentioning that the harassmert of the husband was at the instance and instigation of mother and fa her, who are the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, is not enough. Henc:, the petitioners- accused Nos.2 ancl 3 cannot be put to the ordeal of triirl especially when there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment fcr" or in relation to demand of dowry against them.

13. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judrtments referred to above, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the continuation of criminal pr lceedings against them amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 anc 3 are liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 an I 3 in C.C.No.633 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Adilabad.

15. lnsofar as petitioner-accused No.1 is concerned, this Criminal Petition is disposed of , dispensing his appearance before the trial Court, unless his presenc,e is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition of petitioner-accused No.1 being represented by his counsel on every date of hearing. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed ,TTRUE COPY" SdI- A. PRATHIMA EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, I l I r i l.TheCourtoftheJudicialFirstClassMagistrateatAdilabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station' Adilabad' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI R SUSHANTH REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies pcsd/gh Ya' HIGH COURT DATED:17106/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.147 ot 2O23 2 ti StP ?06 '\-l ;y',' ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION a c#x &,r