Ft'r'her, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jha't hand

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings including personal appearance of the Petitioner No '1 , 2 and 3 / Accused No.2, 3 and 4 respectively, pursuant to the Calendar Case No.59912021 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sirpur-T, District Komuram Bheem-Asifabad, State of Telangana pending disposal of main Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S. Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Smt. 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 7 THE HONOIJRABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CR IMINAL PETITION N o.324 of 2022 ORDER This Crirn nal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 to quash the proceedings against thein in C.C No.599 ot 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class [Vlagistrate at Sirpur-T, District Komuram Bherem, Asifabad. Ther offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-4 of the lndian penal Code (for short 'lPC') and 3. ,l of the Dowry prohibition Act (for short ,the Act') 02 Heard Sri S.Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt S.tVIadhavi, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for lhe State. No representation on behalf of the respondent No 2. Perused the record 03 ln [rref, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of th,: accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 29.O4.2016. They lived happily for few days Thereafter. the accused No. 1 with the instigation of the accused Nos 2 :o 4 started harassing her physically and t 2 mentally by demanding additional dowry from her parents. The accused No.1 used to beat the respondent No.2 on petty issues. A panchayath was held by elders wherein the accused No.1 undertook to look after the respondent No.2 properly, but the accused No.1 sent a divorce notice to the respondent No.2. Hence the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 49g_A of IpC and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2 The petitioner-accused No.2 is the elder brother, the petitioner_ accused No.3 is the younger brother, and the petitioner_accused No.4 is the mother of the accused No.1. The accused No.4 is aged about 72 years. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are residing separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No.2, The petitioners never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No..l . The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not ,// t l ! ; I I I 3 disclose the lequired ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498 I of IPC and 3, 4 of the Act While seeking to quash the r;rrminal proceedings against the petitioners- accusedNos..2to4,learnedcounselforthepetitionersrelied upon a decis;irn in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v' Sfate of Telangana and another' wherein the Honourable Supreme Cotrrt of lndia at Paragraph Nos'31 and 312 held that: "!! Ft'r'her, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jha't hand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in deaiing with these complaints and must take pragrnatit: reallies into consideration white dealing wth matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassntent by the husband's c/ose relatives who had be en living in different cities and never visited or rarely visitect the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different comple: iort. The allegations of the complainant are reqLrired to be scrutinized with great care and circur.scection. 32 W'e therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No 82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.Z was initiated with ulterior motives I I i I I I I I i I I I I I i I I I ' zo2+ tt'tsc g5: 4 to setile personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein Hence, the present case af hand falls within category e) 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 Secflon 482 CrpC and thereby faited to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the c ri m i n al prosec ution ag ai n st th e a ppet I a nts.,, 05 Learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting full-fledged trial by the concerned Court below and prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition.

06. As seen from the entire record, the accused No.1 is a Soldier In Army and working in different places i.e. northern states of lndia. The respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were living together at various places by virtue of employment of the accused No. 1. Whereas, the petitioners_ accused Nos.2 to 4 are residents of Asifabad District, Telangana State. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners_ 5 accused Nor;2 to 4 were residing separately from the accused No ' and resPondent No.2

07. r\ I the allegations are made against the accused No.1 . lt is a lso apparent on the face of the record that the accused No.1 filed H.tr/.O.P.No.'l 1 of 2021 seeking dissolution of marriage betureen the accused No.1 and respondent No 2 The present calettclar case filed by the respondent No.2 appears to be counterblast tr the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the accused l'Jo 1 as the complaint for the offence under Section 498-4 of IPC is lodged later. There are no specific details or descriptive p,a rticulars of instances of harassment causecl by the petitioners-ac,:used Nos.2 to 4. Such generalised and sweeping accusations r- nsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution. OB. trlaking vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal proces,ses and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a rarife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Sr:rlion 49BA of the IPC against the husband and his family in cr,ler to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of ;l wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound tc, ensure \ ,t l I I i I I 6 whether there is any primafacie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members. The petitioners herein are elder brother, younger brother and mother of the accused No.1 who are living in Asifabad District and have not resided in the matrimonial house of the accused No.'1 and respondent No.2. Hence, 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

09. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the setfled 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.2 to 4 amounts to abuse of pr:ocess of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are liable to be quashed. 10 Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.599 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial First 77 7 Class lVlag strate at Sirpur-T, District Komuram Bheem, Asifabad are hereby quashed As er sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall sland closed //TRUE COPY// I SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To 'l . The Judicial F rst Class Magistrate at Sirpur-T, District Komr-rram Bheem- Asifabad

2. The Station l-lcruse Officer, Easgaon Police Station, Komuram []heem- Asifabad District

3. One CC to Sri S Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabac IOUTI

5. Two CD copi,:r; B.ILB/PSLw HIGH COURT DATED:1110312O25 ORDER CRLP.No.324 of 2O'.2i2 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED 2 -f HE S14 14: ((\( 2 5 ilAR Zr25 Z ) "ig'i-t,-'\:l: \1. (- T r-rr .l