Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of crimrnal Petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the entire records in c.c.No.1793 of 2019 on the file of the court of the Hon'ble (spl.) Judicial First class (Excise) It/lagistrate at Karimnagar and quash the same in so far as the petitione rs/a ccused No.2 to 5 are concerned in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition undi:r rsect ott 482 of Cr P C prayrng that i the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of crirninal Petit or ihe High court ntay be pleased to grant slay of all further proceedings lncludr i appearance of the petitioners/accused No.2 to 5 in C.C No.1793 of 2O1g on t Lc file of the court of the Hon'ble (Spl.) Judicial First Class (Excise) I\,4agistrate a1 i'arirnnagar, pendtng disposal of the above r;rtnrinal pelition ln this Honorable Cot r This Petition comlng on for hearing. upon perusirrgl I re Lilemorandum of Grounds of Crinrinal Petition and upon hearing i re arguments of Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy. Advocate for ie Petitioners and Sri IVl.Ramachandra Reddy. Addrtional Public Prosecui '' on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Ganta Ramakrishna. Advocat : for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1442 of 2024 ORDER: This Crimrnal Petrtion is filed under Section 482 of Cr P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C No.1793 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class (Excise) Magistrate at Karimnagar, registered for the offences under Section 498-4 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, '1961

2. Heard Mr. Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, [tIr. Ganta Ramakrishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facfo complainant and lVlr lVl.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State Perused the record

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 are the father, mother and brother of accused No l respectively. The petitioner-accused No.4 is the wife of the petitioner-accused No.S. As per the complaint, it is alleged that on the demand of accused No 1 and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, the parents of de facto complarnant have given dowry at the time of marriage. After the marriage, on the instigation of the petitioners herein,l accused No.1 harassed the de faclo complainant physically and I I - .a i- .; i{ '' .:1 2 -- mentally demanding additional dowry. The petitione accused No.4 also harassed lhe de facto complainant for additional dc ,r:,/ and abused her in filthy language. when the cle facto comprainant g :r'e bir-th to a femare child and informed the accused of the same, the a ,.rsed faired to visit her. After her delivery, when she returned to ma r monial home, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 altogether harasse i her for additional dowry of Rs.10 00,000/-, kicked on her stomach ar I ,ecked her out of the matrimonial home.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners subnrits th; i the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the c ir,e by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in vievy rf the matrimonial disputes between cle facto complainant and a ;r;used No.1 . The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing separ ,1e'y f rom the family of accused No.1 and the c/e faclo complainant Th present complaint was lodged by the de faclo complainant in 2019, wh : eas, her marriage with accused No.1 was performed in 2011. The re; son for such delay remained unexplained. lt is atso contended that excr p t bald allegations, no specific overt acts are atkibuted to the petitioners .l hus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5 On the other hand, the learned counsel appee rr.tg for respondent No.2-de faclo complainant as well as iearned Additional public r=-E=sE,ttr 3 Prosecutor in one tone contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein. have harassed the de faclo complainant after her marriage with accused No 1 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, they prayed to dismiss the petition

6. For the sake of convenience. Section 498-4 of IPC is extracted hereunder 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman suhjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husban.l or the relalive of the husband of a woman, subjects such wornan lo cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a tefin which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine Explanation - For the purpose of tltis sectrcn, "cruelty" means-G)anj/ wilful conducl wliich is of such a nature as is likely lo dnve tlte wonan [o contmit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life. lmb or health (whether mental or physical) of the wonan: or(h)harassment of the woman where such harassmenl is with a viet, lo coercing her or any person related to her to nteet any unlawflrl demand for any propedy or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

7. ln the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ' tqgz scc (cri) azo -:-..=---!.F 4 The following categories of cases cal) i)c s/, illttstration wherern the extraordinary power Ltndc tlte tnherent powers under SectioD ,1gZ C, exe,cised by the High Couft etther to provertl /l/.orress af any CoLrft ot otheAuse to secuo te lltctttgh it may not be possib/e lo lay clovtn an 1 , tlefincd attd suffrciently channelisecl arrcl trtilextlti ngid fannulae at)d to give an exhaustrvc lt:;l of t cases tuherein suclt power should bc exetctscd. ,. d by' way of \iicie 226 ot t:.) t) l)t: L) L tsc of tlt.: r ..ls cf jr t sttce , -r rse . L:learly lLit{it:ltnes or i r i.tcl krnds of (1) Where the allegations made in the Firs ReporT or the complaint, even if they are take value and accepted in their entirety do no constitute any offence or make out a cas( accused; lnformation at their face orirna facie against the (2) Where the allegatiotls in the First lnforntatrr. t Report and otller fitatenals, if any, accompanying the F l.R. i t,ol jlsc/os(-, a coqnizable offence. lL!stifyit1g an itlvosti(tat ; i lty. p61,ro offrcers under Section 156(1) of the Corle e\. , tt tlt)d(,r i)tl orde r of a Magstrate wthin te putvtew of Searo, 55(2t ot ltr: Code. (3) lUhere the uncontrovefted allegattons rnatlt: complaint and the evidence collected in su;tport L rtol dlsc/ose the commission of any offence att case aoalnsl the accused: 'hr: FIR or /;e salne do ntake out a (4) Where. the allegatiotls it1 the FIR (lo no. )onstitLtte a cognizable offence but constitute only a t; )t, )ognizablc offence no investryation is permitted by a potice i,rcet $li tout an order of a Magistrate as contemplated urcler : e )iori 1SS(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or cot ,r tainl are so absurd and inherently intprobable on the bas/s t f tvlttclt no prudent person can ever reach a just conclustor ,\et tltere ts sufficient ground for proceeding against the accLts .. (6) Where there is an express legat bar enqrafte( tt) anv of je provtsons of the Code or the concenect Act 1rt ,,'cr whtch a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the l.) | tutio! t (jnd continuance of the proceedings and/or where ther s a sDecir: prowsion in the Code or the concertrcd A :L ytrovicltng efficacious redress for the grievance of the aglgriet, :,i party: (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly a't2nded with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is rnaliciousty instituted with an ulterior motive for wreakinS, (engeance on tlte accused and with a view to spite him d,t{ to private and personal grudge. 5

8. ln Geddam Jhansi and another v. The Sfafe of Telangana and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.3'1 ,32 33 34, 35, 36 and 38 held as follows '31. lnvoking crintital process /s a serot/s maLler with penal col?sequences nvolvtng coercive /reasa/res. which can be permitted only wlten spectfrc act(s) wl|clt consllute offences punishable under the penal codc or any other penal statule are alleged or attributed to lhe accused artd a pruna facle case is made out. lt apples wtlh equal force when cnll tal laws are invoked in domestic r/lsputes. Crimnalsng donrcstic dlspules without specific allegations and credible rnaterials to suppotT the same may have disastrous colisequences for the nstitution of f amily, which is built on the premtse of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. lnstituton of fantily corstltdes the core of human society. Donestic relationships. such as lhose between family members, are guided by deeply ittgr aned social values and cultural expeclalions These relationships are aften viewed as sacred, demanding a hplter level of rcspect. cammitmet and emotional investnent conpared to other social ol professional assocrations. For the aforesaid reasotl. preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relatianships are soLtght to he brought within the ambit of crirninal proceedittgs ruptttring the fantily bond, courts should be circuntspect and pdicious. and should allow invocatton of crimnal process only when there are specific allegations with suppofung n)aterials w-ltich clearly constilute cnmtnal offences.

32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of natrimonial dlsputes, emotions run high, and as such n the complaints f ed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there rnay be a tendency to implicale other members of the famly who do tlot come to the rescue of the complainant or remairt mute specfators to any alleged incident of harassment which in our vtew cannot Dy ftsell consl/Iule a Cnmtnal acl wttnout tnere being specific acts attributed to them. Fufther, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic dlspules sltould be given lhe colour of criminality.

33. /t goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domeslic sphere. which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and nol in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large, - 2025 tNSC 160 _:. i :,;_*.fi.:;; 6 excel)t pe taps by the inmediate t)eighbaurs. vistble evidence by the victim of domestic violet easil)/ fofthcom ng and producing clirect evirlenc anc) itrduous. which does not necessarily nteat vtolence daes not occur. ln fact. to cleat t_ti l plrc'n,trnenon stringent statutes like protectian Vtcs,eice Acl. 2005. have been enactetl wrtn , n)eil)r)g and scope of wltat amounts to <lorn Sinr:c vtolence perpetrated within the ./o/ilesflL- s rcl.i!^,L's is now crimnalised entailitlg seroi/s co1 the p(.\ pelrators, the courls have to be careful tvll sr./cil o,tses by exatniring whether there are,, spe:r willi fitslaDces againsl the perpetrators and tl alleqa0ons The purpose atld tnandate of the lar victtns of domestic violence is of paramount inpL sr/c/l a balance has to be struck by ensut petl)ctrators are brought to book, all the fantil relat'i\, es are not indiscriminately brought wlhin L in a sw-.eping manner. i 1t t.;, ll oviding - ;t ) may tot be ' ray bc hatd : t)t (l)tnest' 'r,s ltr:rrriclols ' ,t\ Drncstic ". Crl,'lattSlVe ', ltc Y tolence. l tt r t: l:y close 'i r{/ti arlloc.s o/t | (!ealltg will) f t) alloclution s ltlcnoraltsed i ) praiect the I r/ )cc a/7d as ), I tltaI vll)tle ,,.en)l)ers ar , tnn )iDal ne[

34. Ert a ntatrimonial relationship which is founcft. /,li I ll)c basis of andtality and trust to tum sour to an extent to t i ke it parTner to hrtrl allegations of domestic violence and hara: ;tnert against the .ther parlner, would normally not happen at . ;,t spLtr of the monetlt and such acrimonious relationship woulL k-,velop only in cottrse of time. Accordingty, such a situatiot) .,...)uld be te cttlntirtaton of a series of acts which turns ).iterv,/tse arl atnicable relationship. into a fractured one. ThLts. r .crrcl) cases irtvolvtng allegations of domestic violence or hau :.trtcDI tere worticl ttornally be a ser'es of offending acls, r,r / :t wr>ttlcl be requircrl to be spelt out by the complainat) ::,7alrsl lhe perpelrators tn specific terms to rope such perp, i ilors in the cnmtnal proceedings soughl to be initiated again:, therrt. Thus men) qeneral allegation of harassment withoul 1.tt tt l[]g oLtt the specrfics against such perpetrators woutd not sr;i /( e. as /s lhe case in respect of the present appellants.

35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal ca: domestrc violence, the complaints and chargt specific as far as possible, as agalnsl each and ( of the family who are accused of such offences be prosecuted, as othetwise, it may amount to , stri\jent criminal process by indiscriminatety dr, metnberc of the family. There may be situaticns ut the fatnily members or relatives may turn a blit violence or harassment perpetrated to the victint extend any helping hand to the victim, wht necessarily mean that they are also perpetrator: violence, unless the circumstances clearly ! it.tvolvement and instigation. Hence, implicatr relatives without making specific allegations at offendtn,f acts to them and proceeding against printir facie evidence that they were complicit anr t: relalirtg to ; :;hoLtlcl be ./ )ty tnetnber r d sougltt to r, J^ti se o/ lhe ,.1'.1nq all the t .re sonte of I r,ye to tlte :t,td ni4y tlot i) does not )f domestic ( tcatc lheir '( all such ( attnbLttng liern without ! ad actively 7 collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, woulcl amount to abuse of the process o/ /aw 36 Our observalions, hovycver. shoulcl not be gcrrcralise(l to mean that relalives catlnot be fiougltl uncler the purview of llte aforesaid penal prowsions wheo ttrcy ltave actNely pafticipate(l in irtflicting cruelty on the daughter in-law/victim. What needs ta be assessed is whether such allegations are genLtine w ) specific cnminal role assigned ta such rnembers oi lhe family or whether it is merely a spill over and sicle-effect of a natrimontal discord and allegations nade by an emotionallv clisturbed person. Each and every case of donrcstic violence wilt thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case

38. We have also noted that the appeltants do not lue with the principal accused. While the ntarriage took place in poncliclterty and the complainant lived with her husband and rnother_in-lavt in Chennai, the appellants are residents of Hyderabacl. As the appellants do tlot stay together with Urc complainari ancl her husband and mother-in-law to ttlake the appelli)nts as ct) accLtsed for alleged offences contnitterl in the ntatrimoniat ltouse of the complainant an the bas/s of very (letrcraltsed allegations does nol appeat to De tettable

9. ln the judgmenl of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. Sfafe of Telangana and anothef, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos 1B, 25, 31 and 32 held that: "18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the a egations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Oth-er than claiming that appellant No 7 harassed her and lhat appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 hias not provided any specific details or described any pafticulat instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the ttme, date, place, or manner in which the altegecl harassmenl occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete ancl prec&e allegations.

25. A mere reference to the names of tamily mentbers 11 a crimin-al case arising out of a matrimoniat dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvemtent should be nipped in the bud. lt is a welt-recognised fact, borne out ol judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to inplicate all lhe members of the husband's family when domestic drspules arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsuppodecl by concite evidence or pafticularised allegations cannot form the basls for criminat 'l0:l INSC 951 w B ptasocLtlron Courts ntttst exercise caution tn ilch i;e.se.s la) prerent ntisuse of legal provisions and the lc,q i r:rocess arxl avcirj unnecessary harassment of iDnocent fant , nrcntbers ln th-o p'€'set)t case. appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are i ,t rnetnbers ()f tlte iarntly of appellant No.1 have been living tn L.tf ierutl ctttr:s ana hilve not reside(l tt the ntalrinonial hori: j .t at)pellattt No 1 Jn(l rcspctndet No.2 herein Hetrce, :, cant)ot l)t) dragged trtto crintinal prosecution ancl the sarn ,.,NoLtld be at) abt,st: of l/)e process of the law in the absc:r :) of specirc alieJat,otls rnade aga tsl each of them. t)i Jharkhatld t)e extremely i,;ls arrr./ mlst Cealing willt r nent by tltc 'I fferent cleS : wherc llte t iy dtffer enl 't; .equtt ed ta

31. Futtltct this Coud n Preeti Gupla ys. Stat( (201A) 7 SCC 667 held that the coutls have t( carefrrl and cautious tn dealing with these compl take Drugrnatrc realttes into consideration wltrl, n)atriitontal cases. Ihe allegations of haras. husbartcl's close relatives who had been living tn and 'tever vtsited u rarely visited the plur cotr]p,ainattt resided would have an enl, con,ptexton -ihe allegaltons of the complainant , bc sct Lttinized witlt greal carc and circumspectrct ) 32 n'e rcrefore, are of the opinion that the t ougnecl FIR No 82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was itrtiatecl wtth Ltltetiat trlottves to sellle personal scores and gr t(ges agait)st appellant No 1 and his family members i.e., appel, )/)l /Vos 2 Io 6 herein. Hertce, the present case at hand fa s with ) category (l) of iltusfiative parameters highlighted in Bhajan I ) There'fore. lhe r1tc1h Cauft. in the present case. erred in not ,t ercisitlg the powet s availahle to it under Section 482 Crp( nc1 thereby failed tc prevent abuse of the Courl's process by .r ntinuing lhc criminal prosecution agatnst the appellants."

10. In numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Cour whrle dealing with similar cases held that making vague and generalise i allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to he misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm h /isting tactics by a wife and/or her family Sometimes, recourse is takerr to invoke Section 498-4 of the IPC against the husband and his famr y in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a w i:. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is an\ crima facie case qM-;r :: - . ' " ---' j - rh-*'!rr- .J I against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family membeis.

11. ln the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between de facto complainant and accused No 1. As stated in the complaint, the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized in 2011. The couple initially lived happily for some days. Thereafter, on the instigation of the petitioners, accused No.1 began harassing the de facto complainant demanding additional dowry, and later she was driven out from the matrimonial home in the year 2012 Notably, although the alleged harassment commenced immediately after some days of the marriage and she was necked out from the matrimonial home in 2012 itself, the present complaint was lodged in 2019. lt remained unexplained as to why there was a delay in lodging the complaint. lf really there was harassment as alleged, the de facto complainant would not have remained silent for such a long period and would have complained much earlier

12. Apart from that, the record discloses that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are residing separately from accused No.1 and lhe de facto complainant. No substantial or specific allegations of harassment, cruelty, demand of dowry have been made against the petitioners herein. On a careful perusal of contents of the entire charge sheet, it is evident that there are no descriptive parliculars as to in what manner the petitioners --! 10 herein have subjected the cle facto comprainant to r arassment or cruerty or demand of rJowry, except stating that they hav, instigated accused No.'l in harassirrr; the de facto complainant lt is als r not the case of the de facto conrolainant that any dowry article was 'randed over to the petitroners herein .

13. For the for-egoing discussion and in view of tre law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the aforesaid judgme rts, the petitioners- accused Nos 2 to 5 cannot be put to the ordear of r ar especiaily when there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment f:r or rn relation to demand of dovrry against them.

14. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allov,e,d, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 t I 5 in C C.No 17g3 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Judicial rri"st class (Excise) lVlagistrate at Karimnagar. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sha I stand closed SD/-it; ( BHAVANI SWAMY brs;Terut REGtsTRAR /iTRUE GOPY// \ secrroru oFFtcER To,

1. The Judiciar Frrst crass A/agistrate spr Mobire (pcR) coLrrt, Karimnagar 2. The Station House officer, Karimnagar wpS porice Statr r r, Karimna"gar 3. Two ccs to Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state c f rerangana"at 4. One CC to Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate [)pUC] 5. One CC to Sri Ganta Ramakrishna, Advocate [OPUC] Hyderabad [OUT] 1,. 6. Tyvo CD Copre; ry.1ltK,s/\ 1:'''i:..11:''' '' :.x'.]l .3'.!.]. HIGH COURT DATED: 2811012025 ORDER CRLP.No.1442 of2024 1 A STATE o(, fl t N[\ N6 o! * * I'r SPA:( ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION i0 trr - l'l 4 1,