Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition undei Section 482 of Cr. P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Membrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 520 ol 2022 on the file of the court of learned Xll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 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 of all further proceedings including appearance of the Z petitioners in cc. No. s20 of 2022 on the file of the court of learned xll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri. pATTEM VENKATESWARLU, Advocate for the petitioners, and sri. M. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public prosecutor on behalf of the Responrlent No.i and of sri. P. lndra Prakash, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1001 ot 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.520 of 2022 on the file of the Court of learned Xll lVletropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'The Act').

2. Heard Ms.Babitha, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 6, Sri P.lndra Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional 'Public Prosecutor for the State. perused the record.

3. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that A2 is the Father, 43 is the sister, 44 is the husband of sister, A5 is the Paternal uncle and 46 is the wlfe of ,A5 in relation to accused No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2. The -7-- 2 marriage of the respondent No.2 with the son of the .l petitioner No.2 was performed on2211.2015 by giving cash of Rs.5,00,0001 and 6 lakhs worth articles and furniture, 1 kg gold to her and 10 tulas for her husband and a pulsar bike to her husband as dowry. Further, a Volkswagen car as well as Rs.2,00,000/- for honeymoon were given to her husband. lnspite of giving dowry as per their demand, the petitioners taunted her that they gave less dowry and demanded for additional dowry and also to register their house located at Kavali in the name of her husband and even attempted to kill her. After marriage, her husband harassed her by drinking alcohol and by hitting her every day and all the petitioners harassed her due to which respondent No.2 was attacked with epilepsy. Unable to bear the harassment, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section 498-4 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petilioners. After marriage, the 2nd respondent and her husbernd lived in Bangalore as both of them are working at Bangalore and \\ \\ 3 lived happily for six months within that period the respondent conceived and in the 6th month pregnancy the father of 2"d respondent suffered heart attack and she went to her parents house and stayed along with her parents at Hyderabad and respondent No.2 transferred her job from Bangalore to Hyderabad and also insisted her husband to resign his job and join in another company at Hyderabad. Accordingly, he resigned his job and joined in cognizant company at Hyderabad and put up a famiry in a rented hous e far from respondent parents house, but the respondent No.2 insisted him to put up family nearer to her parents house. Later she gave birth to a male child. Respondent No.2 and her parents by creating fictitious story got foisted the present false case against the petitioners. The petitioners never resided along with 2nd respondent and her husband and they were falsely implicated by the 2nd respondent with a view to harass them. Further the respondent No.2 never provided food whenever 2nd petitioner came to Bangarore and did not even talk to him. Thus, all the allegations against the petitioners are invented for the purpose of foisting a false case against the petitioners and there is no truth in the said altegations. only / 4 omnibus and vague allegations are made against the petitioners. There are no specific allegations except stating that additional dowry was demanded by the petitioners and there are no details anywhere in the complaint about demand or receipt of additional dowry'

5. While seeking to quash the criminal oroceedings against the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State 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 aising out of a matimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a wetl-recognised fact' borne out of iudicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domesfic dispufes arise out of a matrimonial discord' Such generalised and sweeping accusations insupponed by concrete evidence or part'rcularised attegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution' Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent rnlsuse of legal provisions and the tegal process and itvoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the presenf case, appellant Nos'2 ' AtR 2025 suPRruE coLlRT 173 \ \ \ 5 to 6, who are the members of the family 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 ciminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of fhe 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 matrimonial dr.spufes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency fo rnisuse provisions like Secflon 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, rlvill lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Somefmes, recourse is taken to invoke Secfion 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order fo seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case agalnsf them. .l 6

31. Further, this Courl in Preeti Gupfa vs. Sfate of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held thttt the coutts 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 allegittions 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 erltirely different complexion. The allegations ol' 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 cas:e af hand falls within category (7) 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 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 othenrvise vyould come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Cou( and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition \ \ 7

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition.

8. A perusal of the record discloses that only vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners and no material was placed by the prosecution with regard to specific instances as alleged by the respondent No.2 and there are no specific overt acts established against the petitioners.

9. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by. concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution.

10. . 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 49BA of the IPC against the husband and his I 8 t 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. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 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.

11. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the setfled principle of law laid drrwo 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 6 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against them are tiable to be quashed

12. Accordingly, this criminat petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused trlos.2 to 6 in c.c.No.520 of 2022 on the file of the court of lerarned xll t\4etropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, cyberabad are hereby quashed. \ \ \ \ 9 _--ql As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The XXI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad. The Station House Officer, Police Station Dundigal, Cyberabad District. One CC to Sri. PATTEM VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUC]. One CC to Sri. P. INDRA PRAKASH, Advocate [OPUC]. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]. Two CD Copies l To,

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. TTS HIGH COURT DATED: 18108t202s ORDER CRLP.No.1001 of202a CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED u\ oR o o a t,lOU + o fs r', - r.r.I (. 5 t". J