The High Court · 2025

Il.9 9l{9_"f r"tqngana, through S H.O WpS, CCS, DD potice Station, HyoeraDao, rep. by public prosecutor, High court, Hyderabad. Sml Yerragangula Lujitha,-Wfo J_:Anwesh, D/o y. Venkataramudu, aged 29 [e^95-, uorony, tarnaka. Secunderabad - 500 017, .SI\4R Vinay Vihar Apartment, r rtn Stieei, kimtee ,"_.ld!!q at F No. 3.03, ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to call for the records and quash the proceedrnEs in C.C. 5698 of 2023 pending on the file of Xlll Addl Chief Metropolitan Ma1;istrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petrtron under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition.the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C No 5698 of 2023 pending on the file of Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magrstrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending drsposal of the Criminal Petition, This Petition comrng on for hearing,upon perusing tre Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arg Jments of Sri N VENKATAIAH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr M Flamchandra Reddy Additional Publrc Prosecutor on behalf of the Responc ent No1. and Sn S.Venkateshwarlu Advocate for the Respondent N02. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1067 o12024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners- accused Nos.2, 3 & 5 to 9, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C C No.5698 of 2023 on the file of Xlll Additional Chief [Vletropolitan Magistrate, Nampatty, Hyderabad for the alleged offences under section 498-4, 506 of lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short'The Act')

2. Heard Sri.N Venkataiah, learned counsel for the petitioners-accusedNos.2,3&5to9and Sri [\I.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public t Prosecutor for the State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.2 is the father, accused l.lo.3 is the mother, accused No 5 is the alleged girl friend of accused No.1, accused Nos 6 to 9 are their distant relatives. It is averred that respondent No 2 was married to accused No.1, who is the 2 son of accused Nos.2 & 3 on 31 .12.2020. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 harassed respondent No.2 mentally and physically and in particular accused Nos l to 4 harassed her for want of additional dowry and it is also stated that all the accused subjected her to criminal intim,dation. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case f,:r the offences under Section 498-4 506 of lpC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3, 6 to 9 and only omnibus and vague allegations are made against the petitioners being the father, mother, and distant relatives of the accused No.l and accusbd No.5 were roped in this false case. lt is further s;ubmitted that respondent No.2 has filed this false case r,t,ith an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners by implicatihg them in the present case. Further, no dates of alleged harassment were mentioned either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. Further, the marriage of respondent No.2 was; performed in the year, 2020 and she was residing sr:parately at Hyderabad soon after the marriage and filed farse case in the _ 1 .7:3i=Lq.1i1.Jr-4:i.+i\::Fij+-'.,:;:,=.;r,.,.r;:,,ij:-::.;1,-ii:j:r=-,_aldi:=! i:i"---.\-i-a!i-.i1+=lr-j+r*F-*{+;(c:Z+ji:ljrl=r 89,=+14, 3 year, 2022. There was endless harassment from respondent No.2, due to which the career of her husband was spoiled.

5. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, Iearned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another, wherein thq Honourable Supreme Court of lndia held as under: "18 A bare perusal of the FtR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appeilant No.1 harassed her and that appeilant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassmenf. She has a/so not mentioned the time, date, ptace, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegation s. 0

24. lnsofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason.A perusal of the FIR woutd indicate that'no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appeilant No.l for demanding more dowry. tt is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appeltant Nos.2 and 3 resided , AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 4 together at Guntakal, Andhra pradesh. Ap,tellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and t),Lntur respectively 31 . Fufther, this Courl in preeti Gupta v:; State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 hetd that the courls have to be extremely caref ul and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consic,eratictn while dealing with matrimonial case:; The allegations of harassment by the hu::band's close relatives who had been tiving in oifferent cities and never visited or rarely visiteC the place where the comptainant resided ,uould 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 thert the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respc,ndent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives tc, sett/e personal scores and grudges against appbltant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (T) of iltu:;trative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Ther<>foret, the High Court, in the present case, erred in nctt exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby faited to p,n)vent abuse of the Court's process by continuin,T the criminal prosecution against the appeltants '

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor a;rpearing for State submits that there are specific allegations, against the 5 petitioners and it is not a fit case for quashing and there are triable issues and the truth or othenrise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court. Hence, prays to dismiss this Criminal Petition

7. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 are father and mother, accused No.5 is the alleged girl friend and accused Nos.6 to g are the distant relatives of accused No.1. The petitioners herein never resided under one roof with respondent No.2. There are no specific instances with regard to the harassment meted out by respondent No.2 in the hands of accused, who are family members and distant relatives and accused No.5 is also implicated without any basis. Only vague and gmnibus allegations are made against the petitioners and no material was placed by the prosecution with regard to specific instances and being relatives of her husband, respondent No.2 roped them in this case and there are no specific overt acts established against the petitioners

8. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific 6 details or descriptive particulars of instances <>f harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3 {i to g. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot fr>rm basis for criminal prosecution

9. Making vague and generalized alleqations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use c,f arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, r€.course 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 b,)und to ensure whether there is aiy prima-facle case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husliand and his family members. Hence, the petitioners-accused lrlr:s.2, 3, 5 to g 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.

10. 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, /l 7 this court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.2, 3, 5 to 9 amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is altowed and the proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.2, 3, 5 to 9 in C.C.No.5698 of 2023 on the file of learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- U.SUDHA SI TANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, .1 The Xlll Addl. chief Metropolitan lt/lagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station WPS' DD' Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRl. N VENKATAIAH Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. S Venkateshwarlu Advocate for R-2 [OPUC] 5 Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High court for the state of - Telangana at HYderbad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies AG/PSL \(, -lar ./ HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 ORDER GRLP.No.1067 of 2024 ,a1=t= : lrlE S rA r€ t t) t 1 ll0l [E t {)F O PI\T CH9O ts'(' > z o CRLP IS ALLOWED *dd 6r\-rr\ap