The High Court · 2025

r the circu msta nces the High Court may includ ing person a I frle of I Addl. Junior teddy at Ku katpa lly Cyberabad P S lT n This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumer:s of Mr S LAKSHI!41 KANTH. Advocate for the Petitioners and tMr It/ RAIVIACl- i NDRA REDDY the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respor jent No.1 and IVlr V.VENKATESII, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINA L PETITION No.273 ot 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482of Cr.P-C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6702 oi 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally (for short 'trial Court'), arising out of Crime No 42 of 2021 ot W.P.S. Gachibowli, registered for the offences under Sections 498-,4' 406,417,506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC'), Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Mr. S.Lakshmikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Mr V.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, petitioner-accused Nos.3 and 5 are the sisters, petitioner-accused No.4 is the brother-in-law, petitioner-accused No.5 is the cousin of accused No.1.

4. The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant was married to accused No.1 on 28.10.201'l , at which time 2 certain dowry was given. From the beginning of the n.ri rriage, accused No.1, being addicted to alcohol, allegedly harassed he both physically and mentally by marntarning illicit relationships with oti er women, with the support of his family members, who also harassed I er for additional dowry. Consequently. the mother of the de facto comp z inant registered their house in her name. lt is further alleged that sirt;e the de facto complainant gave birth to two female children, her nrr ther-in-law and sisters-in-law subjected her to cruelty for not giving birth to a male child, abused her in filthy language, and even threatened her vr :h divorce. After she gave birth to a male child, the in-laws allegedly pe.r uaded accused No.1 not to lead a matrimonial life with her. lt is also alleS:d that accused No.1 along with his cousin (accused No.6) threater ,.d her at her workplace, both of them continued to maintain illicit re ationships with other women and were caught on several occasions. )n 14.07.2021 , accused No.1 is stated to have beaten her severely, c lusing swelling and severe body pains.

5. lt is contended by the learned counsel for petil oners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely impli,: rted in the case by the de facfo complainant, only to wreck vengeanc I in view of the matrimonial disputes between the de facfo complainar I and accused No.1. lt is also contended that the petitioners-accused rlos.2 to 6 are residing separately, away from accused No.1 and rer pondent No.2 i I i I I f I I I i I i ! I i I ! i t j I a j- 3 There is no element of cheating on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos,2 to 6. The allegation of criminal breach of trust cannot be attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. lt is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners and the ingredients of offences alleged against them are not made out. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. lt is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-4 of IPC is extracted hereunder 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished w h imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this sha//^€/$o be \ 4 section. "cruelty" means-(g)any wilful conduct whir:t nature as is likely tct drive the woman to commit ::L cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or heatl mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassmenf or where such harassment ts wiLh a view to coercing person related to her to meel any unlavvful dem,t propefty or valuable security or rs on account of failt.r any persotl related to her to meel such demand ; of such a ,cide or to t (whether he woman )er or any rl for any ' by her or

8. ln the judgment of Sfate of Haryana and others r. CH.Bhajan Lat and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows The following categories of cases can be state(, ty way ot illustration wherein the extraordinary power under A,-L cle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.p.a can be exercised by the High Couft either to prevent aD, se of the process of any Cowt or otherwise to secure llte enl! of justice. thouglt it may not be possib/e to lay down any pre) x:, clearty defined and suffiaently channelrsed and inflexibte gt, Cetjnes or igid forrnulae and to give an exhaustive list of myr;i.l kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First ln ormation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not Lt ma facie constitute any offence or make oul a case a( nst the accused; (2) Where the allegatrons in the First lnformation q )Dort and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.t.R. do rrr I dlsc/ose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation )y police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code excep, under an order of a Magistrate within the puNiew of Section 1i (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroveded allegations made in t e FIR or complaint and lhe eudence collected in suppott of '( same do not disclose the commission of any offence and t 1 ke out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not c) cognizable offence but constiute only a non ( offence, no hvestigation is permitted by a police offt: an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sectt of the Code; ,st ule a )gnizable ,r without tn 1 55(2) ' tqgz scc (cri) +26 i ! i t I I aI w 5 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedtng against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is inslituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the gnevance of the aggrieved pafty; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking 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 and others v. Sfate of Telangana and anothef, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph No.32 held that: "32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his 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 Htgh Coutl, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Secton 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Courf s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against lhe appellants."

10. ln numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases held that 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 to invoke Section 498-4 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable dernands of a wife. Therefore, the ' 202a Ixsc 95i 6 Courts are bound to ensure whether there is ant, prima facie case against the husband and his family members befcr,. prosecuting the husband and his family members.

11. ln the presenl case, admittedly, there is no disp tte with regard to the marriage between the de facto complainant ar C accused No..l . A perusar of the record wourd indicate that no subs:i ntiar and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners her rin, excepl stating that they have instigated accused No..l in harasr; rg the de facto complainant. on a carefur perusar of contents of the er rire charge sheet, it is evident that there are no descriptive particurars as .: in whar manner the petitioners herein have subjected the de faci< complarnant to harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry. All ftr, allegations are directed against the accused No.1 . The whore gen,r ;is of ailegations levelred in the FrR and charge sheet revorves arounc he husband and his conduct. Merely mentioning that the harassment o, he husband was at the instance and instigation of his family memb e ,s, who are the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, is not enough. Furtherrr cre, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein as t: in what manner they have threatened the de facto comprainant r ausing criminar intimidation and as to how they have committed crimina breach of trust. The lnvestigating officer did not examine any indepc.r dent witness to substantiate the allegations levelred in the charge sher: Moreover. the 7 respondent No.2 went to an extent of alleging that she was subjected to throttling. The charge sheet being outcome of investigation, there is no medical evidence like statement of a competent Doctor to prove the said allegation of throttling. ln that view of the matter, the criminal proceedings cannot be continued agarnst the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6.

12. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the Judgments referred to above, the petitioners cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be sheer abuse of process of the law. Hence, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.6702 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vth Addl Junior Civil Judge cum Xlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad Hyderabad [OUT]

2. The Station House Officer, lT Corridor Pohce Station, Cyberabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 4. One CC to Mr. S LAKSHMI KANTH, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Mr. V. VENKATESH, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies \(A' I{I,/S HIGH COURT DATED: 0410912025 ORDER CRLP.No.273 of 2024 '\.. -,, \\-,u,.\ 0 i r:i ;ffi ']: .t \r'. t'_'-_., +. - --..--iu't-' Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Al owed. q cpf( eA \c-k +r'i l I I I I I I I I I i I i I t I ) I t I I I I $ I i I ,| I t i ! Ii i I I