The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC no.245 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Alappur, Mahabubnagar District pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. Krishna Sumanth, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Mrs S.Madhavi, learned Asst Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI I CRIMINAL PETITION No.266 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.5 to 9 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.245 oI 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Alampur, pertaining to Crime No.52 of 2021 of P.S. Undavelly, registered for the offences under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard Sri N.Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.tt/ladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2 Perused the record

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.S and 7 are the sisters of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.6 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.5. The petitioner-accused No.8 is the wife of petitioner-accused No.9 The petitioner-accused No.9 is the maternal uncle of accused No.1 4 The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent-de facfo complainant was married to accused No.1 on 16.11.2016 and it was an arranged marriage. lt is the case of lhe de facto complainant that when 2 JS, J Crl.P.No.266 of 2022 she along with accused No.1 went to the house of petitioner-accused No.5 for Shivaratri Festival, she questioned the family members of accused No.1 regarding his illegal relationship with another lady. Then, all the accused, including the petitioners herein, abused her in filthy language; harassed her stating that accused No.'1 is a Government Employee; the marriage was not performed to their standards and also demanded her to bring additional dowry. Finally, on 27.12.2019, all the accused beat her and necked her out of the matrimonial home

5. lt is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the present case has been registered against the petitioners-accused Nos.5 to 9 only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between lhe de facto complainant and accused No.'1 . lt is contended that the petitioners herein are staying away from the de facto complainant and accused No.1 , therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the de facto complainant. Moreover, the petitioners- accused Nos.8 and 9 are the distant relatives of accused No.1 . lt is further contended that the present complaint has been filed in 2021, whereas, the marriage o'f de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed in 2016 and if there was really harassment from the date of marriage, the de facto complainant should have complained much earlier. lt is further contended that in his reply to the legal notice issued by the de facto complainant, accused No.'l denied the de facto 3 JS, J ctl-P.No.266 ot 2022 complainant visiting the house of petitioner-accused No.5 for Shivaratri Festival and stated that she is pursuing her B.Com. by staying at her parents' house. Hence, the alleged incident of accused harassing the de facto complainant does not arise and the same is false. lt is also contended that except bald allegations against them, no specific overt acts are attributed to them.

6. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Preeti Gupta v. Sfafe of Jharkhandl , wherein, at paragraph No.33, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows

33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations rs a/so nol uncommon. At times, even after the conclusiott of criminal tial, it is difficult to asceftain the real truth. The coutts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complainls and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarety visited the place whelre the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the pafiies. /t ls a/so a matter of common knowledge lhat m cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners '(2oro) 7 scc 667 I I 4 JS, J Crl-P-No.?66 of 2022

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facfo complainant from the date of 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, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. 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 with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-(3)any wilful.conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cauje grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(h)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlavvful demand for any propedy or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

9. ln the judgment of Stafe of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersz, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ' t9g2 scc (cri) 4ze 5 JS, J Crl.P.No.266 of 2022 The foltowing categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein lhe extraordinary power under Aiicle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 C..P.C. can be exercised by the High Couft either to prevent abuse of the process of any Coutt or otherwise to secure the ends of iustice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First Report or the complaint, even if they are taken value and accepted in thei entirety do not constitute any offence or make out a case accused; lnformation at their face prima facie against the (2) Where the allegations in the Fist lnformation Repoft and other mateials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the puview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontrovefted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in supporl of the same do nol dlsc/ose the commission of any offence and make out a case agarnsf the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, nc; investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 1 55(2) of the Code; (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 proceeding 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 instituted) 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 grievance 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. 6 JS, J Crl-P.No.266 of 2022

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 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

11. ln the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.'1 and it was also arranged'marriage. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners herein, other than stating that they abused lhe de facto complainant in filthy language and used to harass her by demanding more dowry. None of the petitioners have been aftributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. Though the marriage had happened in the year 2016 and alleged incident had occurred in the year 2017,the present complaint was lodged in the year 2021 and the reason for such delay remained unexplained I 7 JS, J Crl.P-No.266 of 2022

12. lt is also an admitted fact that the petitioners herein, who are the family members of accused No.1, are staying away from the family of de facto complainant and accused No.'l . The de facto complainant and accused No.1 have set-up a separate family at Bethamcherla of Kurnool District and none of the family members of accused No.1 are staying with them. Moreover, the petitioners-accused Nos.B and 9 are the distant relatives of accused No.1. lt is common for the family members of either of the spouses to meet them now and then and the same cannot be termed as harassment. The petitioners cannot be subjected to prosecution, merely basing on the bald averments of harassment

13. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal's case (supra) and Preeti Gupta's case (supra), since the allegations in the FIR or complaint do not pima facie disclose the commission of alleged offences against the petitioners, they 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. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, this Crlminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.5 to 9 in C.C.No.245 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Alampur. I \ I l \ I .- JS, J Crl.P.No.266 of 2022 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ U ECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Smt Justice Juvvadi Sridevi (For Her Lordships kind Perusal) \ To

1. The Junior Civil Judge Alampur, [Vlahabubnagar District. 2. The Station House Officer, Undavally Police Station, Jogulamba Gadwal District 3. '1 1 LR Copies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

5. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.

6. One CC to Sri N. Krishna Sumanth, Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD copies. B.II,II/DI, +y HIGH COURT DATED:1110312025 ORDER CRLP.No.266 ot 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED ,t\ a4 0 k q- '// I \ \ u.f. STAI. 1 L-. 0 0 APfl 2025 O.. ...-:i- "1 ,,\ \ I t