Mudwin, Kadthal Mandal, K v. Rangareddy, Telangana State

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.867 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is liled under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS) by petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.698 of 2024 on the file of Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Amangal. The offences alleged against petitioners are under Sections 498(Al, 494, 5O4, 506 rlw 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 196 I (for short 'D.P.Act').

2. Heard Mr. S.Srinivasa Chary, learned counsel representing Mr. Kasoju Mahesh Chary, learned counsel for petitioners and Ms. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l - State. Perused the material on record.

3. On the basis of complaint by respondent No.2 on

22.03.2024, FIR was registered at PS Kadthal (bearing FIR 2 JAK, J CRLP 867 2025 No.71 of 2024) wnder Sections 498(A), 494 and 5O6 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act. On a perusal of charge sheet dated 25.09.2024, it is observed that Section 504 of IPC is added. It is reflected in the charge sheet that petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 committed offences punishable under Sections 498(4), 5O4 rlw 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act. It is stated in the affidavit that de-facto complainalt was married to one Nakkapothu Venkataiah in 20O0. Out of wedlock, couple had two children. It is further stated that both of them happily lived for 4 years and later, he started harassing her for additional dowry, that accused Nos.2 and 3 also participated in the harassment.

4. It is stated in the complaint that in 2013, de-facto complainant and her husbald along with children went to Kalwakurthy and started living there. It is further stated that her husband used to visit her home once in 15 days. As he was not regularly visiting her residence, she filed maintenance case at Kalwarkurthy Court vide M.C.No.O3 of 2019 (presentiy in Amangal Court vide M.C.No.07 of 2023\. , a JAK, J CRLP 867 2025 It is stated that in 20 15, her husbald married another women and set up family at Hayathnagar and that they have tu,o children. It is further stated that whenever she used to ask her husband, he always beat her and threatened her. It is also stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 have supported her husbald. That though, counselling was conducted, there was no change in her husband. That, her husband is not taking ca-re of her and her children. Hence, the complaint.

5. Statements are recorded, investigation is concluded I ald charge sheet is filed. The gist of the charge sheet is on similar lines of the complaint. No overt acts are reflected in the charge sheet against accused Nos.2 and 3.

6. When queried, learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3, stated that issues have been framed. 7 . It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 that on a perusal of complaint/FlR and charge sheet, it can be inferred that no case is made out against petitionqls/ accused Nos.2 and 3. I 4 JAK, J cRt.P 867 2025 It is further submitted that de-facto complainant specifically stated in her complaint that she ard her husbald along u.ith children were staying at I(a},r,akurthy from 2013 and that she filed a maintenance case in the Court of Kalwakurthy numbered as M.C.No.O3 of 20i9. It is also submitted that in the complaint, it is stated that from 2015, her husband is residing with another women at Hayathnagar ald visiting her once in 15 days. {" -J B. It is submitted that the only grievance of de-facto complainant against accused Nos.2 and 3 is that they hane supported her husband. It is further submitted that to attract Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D. P.Act, there should be an act of harassment for additional dowry immediately prior to the complaint. It is further submitted that such acts are not reflected in the complaint and Sections 498(A) and 3 and 4 of D.P.Act are not attracted. It is also contended that accused Nos.2 and 3 are residents of Kadtha,l Mandal alld de,facto complainant in her complaint stated that she has been living with her husband in Kalwakurthy from 2O13. i) 5 JAK, J CRLP 867 2025

9. It is submitted that u,hen accused Nos.2 and 3 are not residing in the same place i.e., Kalwakurthy, the question of harassing, intimidating and intentionally insulting the de facto complainant cannot be true. It is lastly submitted that complaint/FIR lodged are frivolous in nature. It is urged that ingredients of the Sections charged are not made out in the facts and circumstances of the CASC. .J {-

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 State submitted that de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that accused Nos.1 to 3 have been harassing physically and mentally for additional dowry and as charges have been framed in C.C.No.69B of 2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amangal, the proceedings be permitted to go on and interference is not necessitated

11. On 03.O2.2025, this Court issued notice to respondent No.2 and directed learned counsel for petitioner to take out personal notice. In spite of receipt of notice, there is no appearance (on 14.02.20251. Today, when the 6 JAK, J CRLP 867 2025 matter is listed, there is no appearance on behaif of respondent No.2.

12. Heard learned counsels, perused the entire record and considered the rival submissions. 1 3. The de-facto complainant was married to accused No.l in 2000. They are blessed r.r,ith two children. They lived happily for a period of 4 years, as per the complaint/FIR and the charge sheet. The de-facto complainant stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed her physically arld mentally for additional dowry, abused her and used to quarrel with her.

14. It is observed that in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet, that in 2013, the de-facto complainant, her husband along with two children have shifted to Kalwakurthy and have been residing in a rented portion. In other words from 2013, de-facto complainant is staying away from accused Nos.2 and 3, who are residents of Mudwin Village, Kadthal Mandal. It is surprising to note that complaint is lodged in Kadthal ?olice Station and in ,,-8.' I t' 7 JAK, J CRLP 867 2025 the charge sheet, address of complainant is reflected that she is resident of Kadthal Mandal. Nowhere in the complaint nor in the charge sheet, it is stated that the complainant shifted to Kadtha-l from Kalwakurthy. It is reflected in the complaint/ FIR and charge sheet that accused Nos.2 and 3 are harassing her prior to her shifting to Kalwakurthy in 2013, no other overt acts are attributed. The grievance of complainant is that accused Nos.2 and 3 supported her husband, that her husband is not living with her and living with another women, visiting her once in 15 days. That she had filed maintenance case vide M.C.No.O3 of 2Ol9 at Kalwakurthy Court. i 5. Another surprising factor to be noted is that if de- facto complainant filed maintenance case rn 2Ol9 at Kalwakurthy Court, she could have Iiled other cases against accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3, but for the reasons best known to her, has not filed. She choose to flle a complaint in 2024, that too after a period of 24 years after marriage. Nowhere in the complaint nor in the FIR nor in the charge sheet, it s reflected as to why the d. I I ) I 8 JAK. J CRLP 867 2025 complainant has not taken any steps or initiated any legal proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.l is not before this Court. This Court is confined onlv to the charges against accused Nos.2 and 3.

16. On an analysis of the entire contents of the record, it is apparent that accused Nos.2 and 3 have been named with an intention to harass them. It can be inferred from the facts and circumstances that no overt acts are attributed to accused Nos.2 and 3.

17. To attract Section 498(A) and Sections 3 and 4 of D.p Act, there shouid be an allegation or a complaint that accused Nos.2 and 3 harassed the complainart immediatel-v prior to the complaint. No such allegation is forth coming anywhere in the entire record nor in the charge sheet.

18. Section 498(A) of IpC reads as follows: "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of tl-re husband of a womarr, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a tcrm which may extend to three years and shall also be Iiable ro fine." 9 JAK, J CRLP 867 2025 To attract Section 498(A) ol IPC, there should be an a-ilegation on the accused prior to the lodging of complaint, alleging harassment or subjecting to cruelty, causing de- facto complainant to commit suicide or darger to life by any willful conduct or such harassment with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demald. As per the contents of the FIR/ complaint ald charge sheet, no harassment nor ary willful conduct nor any cruelty has been alleged. In the absence of ar-ry such ingredients mentioned in Section 498(A), the allegation levelled against accused Nos.2 alld 3 cannot be sustained.

19. Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act speaks of penalty for giving or taking or demalding dowry. Nou,here in the complaint nor in the FIR nor in the charge sheet, it is stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 have either demanded or said to have harassed her for dowry. As per Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, which is special act, any person taking dowry or demalds dowry sha1l be punishable under Sections 3 ald 4 of D.P.Act. No such allegations are reflected in the entire record. (- I I -: l0 JAK, J CRLP 867 2025

20. Section 504 of IpC reads as follows: "Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby givcs provocation to arry person, intending or knowing it to be likely t1' at such provocation will cause hi"m to break the public peace, or to commit alv oth<_-r offence, shall be punished with imprisonmenr of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with line, or with both.,, On a reading of Section 504 of IpC, it is evident that there should be an intention to insult, further with an intent to provoke breach of peace. No such allegation is levelled in the complaint nor reflected in the FiR nor mentioned in the charge sheet. In the absence of such ingredients, the said Section cannot be made applicable.

21. The complaint is after 24 years of marriage. From 2013, the complainant has been staying at Kalwakurthy and filed maintenance case against her husband and no complaint was filed against the petitioners either under Sections 498(A), 504 of IpC or Sections 3 and 4 of D.p.Act. If any such harassment has been meted out to the complainant, she should have filed a complaint at the earliest point of time. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that nowhere she has mentioned that she has moved ;{ iil, JAK, J CRIP 867 2025 back to Kadthal Mandat and residing there. In the absence of any ingredients being made out, proceedings in C.C.No.69B of 2024 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalgat, cannot be permitted to continue, as it would be an abuse of process of law.

22. Section 482 of Cr.p.C. is of vide ambit. The High Court in exercise of inherent power arld for the purposes of stopping the abuse of process of law or to do justice, can invoke the power and quash the criminal proceedings or permit the proceedings to go on. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that a-tl the charges levelled against accused Nos.2 and 3 are frivolous in nature and are only with an intention to harass accused Nos.2 and 3, who are aged above 55 years and are residing in Mudwin Village, Kadthal Mandal. Though, de-facto complainant,s address is same in the criminal petition and charge sheet, but, as per averments in the complaint/FlR and the charge sheet, she is residing separately from 2013 arrd'f,as not stated when she has moved back to Kadthal and no specific overt acts I ' i l I I I I 12 JAK, J CRLP 867 2025 are attributed nor any detaiis are forthcoming. Ingredients of the Sections charged against accused Nos.2 and 3 have not been made out. In the facts and circumstalces of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that proceedings before the Judicia,l First Class Magistrate, Amangal in C.C.No.698 of 2024 are liable to be quashed and are accordingly, quashed, qua petitioner Nos.2 arld 3.

23. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha11 stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. P PADMANABHA REDDY, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. \ c ION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class lt/lagistrate, Amangal. 2. The Station House Officer ., Kadthal Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SRI KASOJU MAHESH CHARY Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies To, -ft' .,.:, . HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 ORDER CRLP.No.867 of 2025 SeH1 TA r6- () 1 I I'IAB 2rZ5 I gO )As cT ALLOWING THE CRI,.PETITION r) ----\( U {