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 cc.No.224112022, on thefile of the spt Judicial First class Magistrate (For Prohibition and Excise offences) At Nalgonda for the offence under Sections - 498-4, 323, 494, 504 RA/r/ 34 of lPC, Section 3 and 4 Of D.p. Act against the petitioners. l.A. NO: 1 OF 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 grant STAY of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in CC.No.224112022, on the file of the Spl Judicial First Class Magistrate (For Prohibition and Excise Offences) At Nalgonda pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SRIDHAR LONKALA, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRI M RATVIACHANDRA REDDY, the ditional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER , I I I I I I I t I I I I i i I t I i I I I I t I i I I I i I Ij ! l I f! I i 7 r 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.1213 ot 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2241 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned special Judicial First class t\Iagistrate (for Prohibition and Excise offences) at Nalgonda (for short 'trial court'), registered for the offences under Sections 4gB-A,494,323 and 504 read with section 34 of the lndian Penal code (for short 'lpc') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, I961 (for short ,the Act'). 2- Heard [t/lr. sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-state. Inspite of service of nf,ti"", there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facfo complainant. perused the material on record.

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are the elder and younger brothers of accused No.1. According to the complaint, the allegation against the petitioners is that acting on their words accused No.1 suspected the character of de facto complainant and subjected her to physical and mental harassment. Thereafter, accused No.1 married 2 accused No.6. ln that regard, when a panchayat was conducted in the presence of elders, all the accused, incruding the petitioners herein, have warned the de facto comprainant, demanded her to give divorce to i accused No.1 and physicafiy assaulted her by pushing and beating her with hands.

4. lt is contended by the rearned counser for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facfo complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between her ancl accused No..l . The present complaint was lodged by the de faclo complainant after ten years of her marriage with accused No.1. The reason for such delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. The accused and the de facto complainant have entered into a mutual agreement dgted 13.1 1.2020, however, the present complaint was lodged by the de facfo complainant on 24.09.2022 i.e., nearly after two years. The petitioners herein are staying away from the de facto complainant and accused No..l . Except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. on the other hand, the rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor contended that alr the accused, incruding the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 , 3 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. lt is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 4g4 of IPC and Section 1g8 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder

494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.- Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking ptace during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (Exception)- This iection does nol extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a maniage during the life of a former husband or wife, if guch husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of f acts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.

198. Prosecution for offences against marriage.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence: Provided that- (a) where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the locat cusfoms and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in -r t I I :l I i I I l l I 4 public. some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf; (b) where such person is the husband and he is serwnq in any of the Armed Forces of the union under conditions whrch are certified by his Commanding Officer as precluc)ng hin from obtaining leave of abse/lce to enable him to make a complaint in person, some other person authorised by the husband in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) rnay make a complaint on his behalt; (c) there the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under fSecllon 494 or section 495) of the lndian Penat Code (45 of 1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on her bettatf by her father, mother, slster, son or daughter or by her father's or mother's brother or sister [,or, with the leave of the Cc_turl, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.l 7. Section 494 of IPC deals with bigamy. The provision under Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C. set out the prohibition for the Court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of lpC The cognizance, however, can be taken only if the complaint is made by some person aggrieved of the offence.

8. ln the instant case, having gone through the record, it clearly depicts that no complaint was made by the de facfo cgmplainant before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the offence under Section 494 of lPC. On the other hand, she has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Police for investigation and the same is not maintainable in view of the bar enshrined in Section 198('1 ) of Cr.P.C. The Police, after concluding investigation have filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate without perusing the mandate under.section- flelf ) of Cr.p.C. and issued process to the accused, which is contrary to law. However, Section 4g4 of lpC is not i- applicable to the petitioners herein, as they are not parties to the afieged second marriage.

9. For better adjudication of the case, Section 498_4 of lpC is also extracted hereunder:

4984. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the retative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-(e)any witfut conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to dive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(!)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any propefty or valuable security or is on account of faiture by her or any person related lo her to meet such demand.

10. ln the judgment of Sfate of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ...Th9 following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Afticte 226 or the inherent powers under Section 492 Cr.p.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, thoySh it may not be possrb/e to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficientty channelised ancl inflex'ibie guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of mliriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First lnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; ' reoz scc lcrl azo I 6 (2) Where the allegations in the First lnformation Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifyino an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the puNiew of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontroveied allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppori of the same do nof dlsc/ose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable of{ence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a l/lagistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code: (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which tto prudent person can ever reaclt a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved pafty; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly atlended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

11. ln the judgmenl of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anothef, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.18, 25, 31 and 32 held that: "18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appe ant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any pafticular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time. date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment '2024 INSC 9-s3 , 7 .legal misuse of tegat provisions and the occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminat case arising oul of a matrimonial dispute' without si;pecific allegations iidicating their active. inv.olvement should be iippea in ihe bud. tt is a-well-recognised fact' borne out of pdicial experience, that there is often a te.ndency to implicate all 'the me.ber" of tie husband's family when domestic dlspules arise out of a matrimonial discord Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupporled by concrete evidence or parfiiudnsed allegations cannot form the basrs for criminal 'prosecution. Couis must exercise caution in such cases fo 'prevent proce.ss an.d avoid unnecessary hirassment of innocent family members. ln. the present case,'appellant Nos 2 to 6' w!.o are the members of the family of appeilant No 1 have been tiving in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and responderl$ No'2 herein Hence' they cannot be diagged into criminal prosecution ald .!he s.ame would be an abuse of lhe process of the taw in the absence of specific allegations macle against each of them' 31. Further, this Courl in Preeti Gupta vs state of Jharkhand (2010) 7 Si,CC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely 'careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and mu1.t take pragmatic reatties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who-had been living in diferent cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided woutd have an eltrely \dif!-e^:?: complexion. The allegations of the complainant are requtred 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 ulteriormotiveslosett/epersonalscoresandgrudgesagainst Nos 2 to 6 appetlant No.1 and his family members i e- '..appellant hierein. Hence, the present iase at hand fatls within category (7) of itlustrative parameters highlighted in Bhaian Lal' Therefore' the High Court, i4 the presint case' erred in not exercising the ptoweis available to ii under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the CourT's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

12. ln numerous cases, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases held that making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonialconflicts,ifnotscrutinized,willleadtothemisuseoflegal 8 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 facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members

13. ln the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between lhe de facto complainant and accused No..1 . On a bare perusal of the allegations made in the FIR or charge sheet, even if they are taken on face value, no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners, except stating that acting on their words accused No.1 suspected the character of de fagto complainant and subjected her to physical and mental harassment. lt is an admitted fact that the petitioners herein are staying away from accused No.1 and de facto complainant. lt is not the case of the de facfo complainant that any dowry article was handed over to the petitioners herein. The present complaint was lodged by the de faclo complainant against the accused after ten years of her marriage with accused No.1. lf really there was harassment, she would have lodged the complaint much earlier. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein as to how they have voluntarily caused hurt and intentionally insulted the de facto complainant with an intent to provoke breach of peace. No medical certificate is filed by the prosecution to prove the injuries suffered by the de facto complainant. Hence, it appears that the present complaint was maliciously instituted by the de facfo complainant against the petitioners herein with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge, in view of matrimonial disputes between her and accused No.1. '14. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgements, the petitioners- accused Nos.4 and 5 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 in GC.No.2241 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class I\/agistrate (for Prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEGTION OFFICER To, 1 The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise Court) at Nalgonda I j --------.7,;

2. The Station House officer, Police station wPS Nalgonda, Nalgonda Drstrict. 3. One CC to SRI SRIDHAR LONKALA Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies GR/PSL Yt- HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 810812025 \ / ,) t) o v. ill S14 ,,s ?. L 10 stP zrd o ! - r- 1-1,;,r ORDER CRLP.No.1213 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @z &"