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 quash the Charge sheet in C.C No. 11912019 on the file of Spl JFCM tt/obile (PCR)- Cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Adilabad District. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including arrest and appearance in C.C No. 11912019 on the file of spl JFCM t\4obile (PCR)- Cum- I Addl Junior Civit Judge Adilabad District pending disposal of the quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D SURAKSHIT RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioners and SR! M RAMACHANDRA REDDY, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No 1 and of Sri T SRUJAN KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER , THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.633 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitloners- accused Nos. 2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in CC.No 119 of 2019 on the file of JFCIV I\4obile (PCR)-cum-l Additional Junior Civil Judge. Adilabad District. The offences alleged against the petrtioners are under section 498-4, 323, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohrbition Act (for short 'The Act )

2. Heard Sri D.Surakshit Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, Sri T Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record

3. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 2 is father in law and 43 is mother in law and 44 is brother in law of the respondent No 2. The marriage of the respondent No.2 with the son of the petitioners No 2 and 2 3 was performed on 14.06.2012 by givrng dowry of - Rs 3,00,000/- cash, 1 tula of gold and motor cycle to the husband of respondent No.2. After marriage her husband harassed her physically and mentally to bring 3 lakhs additional dowry He stated that if he marries another woman he will get more dowry and all the petitioners harassed her that she rs not beautiful. During the marital rife she was blessed wrth a son but her husband did not take care of her son. When the matter is informed to her parents they conducted a panchayat for two to three times On that her husband gave assurance to look after the de facto complainant well, but he did not mend his behavior. On 28 11.2018 her husband came to house in drunken condition and closed the doors and abused her in filthy language and beat her with hands and threatened to kill her Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section 498-4, 323, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and Sectiorrs 3 and 4 of the Act 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners- accused Nos 2 to 4 who are the father in law and mother in 3 law and brother in law of the respondent No.2. Only omnibus and vague allegations are made against the petitioners being the parents and brother of the accused No.1 and roped them in a false case. lt is further submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet would entail that mentally or physically harassing the de facto complainant is without any basis and false in as much they were not present in the house in which de facto complainant and her husband were residing, as they started residing separately after five months of marriage as desired by the respondent No 2. The present complaint rs lodged as a counter blast to the case lodged in C.C.No 17 of 2019 by the husband of the complainant 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. Stafe of Telangana and anotherl 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 ' atR 2oz5 supnrvE couRr 173 .!rr-Il 4 indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well-recognised fact, borne out of ludicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes anse out of a matrimonid discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsuppofted by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases lo prevent mr'suse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family menbers. ln the presenf case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the fantily of appellant 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 criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 28. The inclusion of Section 4984 of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonid dlspufes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague - 5 and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the mlsuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tacfics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 4984 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Courl has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 31 Further, this Court in Preeti Gupfa vs. Sfate of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while 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 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 af hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore. 6 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

8. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are the father in law, mother in law and brother in law of the respondent No 2. lt is admitted fact that the respondent No.2 and her husband resided separately after marriage, as such there is no question of harassing the respondent No.2 and there are no specific allegations against these petitioners. Only vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners and no material was placed by the prosecution with regard to specific instances and being parents and brother of her 7 husband, respondent No.2 roped them in this case and there are no specific overt acts established against the petitioners. I Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific detarls or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 Such generalised and sweepinE accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis t for criminal prosecution

10. I\Iaking 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 facle case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members. Hence, the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 4 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would t ( I 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.2 to 4 amounts to abuse of process of law therefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed 12 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.1'19 of 2019 on the file of JFCM lVlobile (PCR)- cum-l Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad District, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stan d c[oged t-t SD/- T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I 1 2 The Special Judicial Magistrate of First class Mobile (pcR) cum lAdditional Junior Civil Judge. Adila-bad District. The Station House Officer, Mavala police Station, Adilabad.

1.-- 7 J 4 5 6 One CC to SRI D SURAKSHIT RAO One CC to SRI T SRUJAN KUMAR' PRosEcuroR :Ifi,3nf,5iBuc Two CD CoPies , Advocate [OPUCI Advocate [OPUCI High Court for the State of Telangana' I I GItll'sl. I W HIGH COURT DATED:14 tOBtzO2s t t ORDER CRLP.No.633 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRLP I [0 K I l 1de 5 f 4t€ QA ( 3 1 0[i 2925 .) l , s o4Tc