The High Court · 2025

2. The State of Telangana,, Rep. By the Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Respondent 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 proceedings as against the petitioners who are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 to 6 in C.C. No.3696 of 2020 on the file of the V Addl. Judicial firlagistrate of First Class, Warangal. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners who are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 to 6 in C.C. No.3696 of 2020 on the file of the V Addl. Judicial [\/]agistrate of First Class, Warangal. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Pelition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ennamsetty Akhil, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. S.tVladhavi, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1719 of 2023 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C C.No.3696 of 2020 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 342 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act')

02. Heard Sri Ennamsetty Akhil, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.2 Perused the record.

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.'1 was solemnized on

02.12.2015. After one month of the marriage, accused No.1 arranged a visa for respondent No.1. While making the necessary arrangements, accused Nos.2 to 6 advised her to inform the concerned authorities that she was going to serve as a cook and housemaid, and not as a wife.loining her husband to lead a 2 - marital life. On 20.01.2016, respondent No.1 travelled to the USA and joined the conjugal society of accused No. 1. However, accused No 1 used to make telephone calls to the parents of respondent No.1 and inform them that he was not interested in leading a marital life with her and that he would be sending her back to lndia. On 08.11.2017, respondent No.1 gave birth to a female child A few days later, accused No.1 arranged tickets for respondent No'l and the minor child and insisted that she return to lndia. Thereafter, accused No.1 returned to lndia but did not make any effort to visit the child. When respondent No.1 contacted accused No.1 over the phone, he asked her to come to Bhadrakali Temple. Accordingly, respondent No 1 went to the Bhadrakali Temple on 06.'l 1.2018, where she met accused No.1, but he refused to allow her to rejoin his conlugal sociely. Subsequently, a panchayat was held, and the elders found fault with accused No.1 and advised him to change his attitude and lead a happy marital life. Following this, respondent No.1 rejoined accused No.1 at Bheemaram village, and accused No.'l subsequently returned to the USA on 27.11.2018. When accused No.'1 came back to lndia on 06.08.2019, he stopped speaking to respondent No.1 and used to consult his mother for everything, even though they were residing in the same room. lt is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 6 subjected respondent No.1 to mental and -a 3 physical harassment for additional dowry. Aggrieved by such harassment, respondent No.1 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 498-4 and 342 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and have never subjected the respondent No.1 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents and the petitioner- accused Nos.4 to 6 are the sisters of the accused No.1. They never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.1 and the accused No.1. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 58 and 69 years, respectively. The peiitioners have neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.1 nor from her parents at any point of time. lt is further contended that all the petitioners are staying separately away from the accused No.1 and respondent No.'l . lt is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Sections 498-4 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Apart from the same, the charge 4 \:- I - under Section 342 of IPC is also not made out against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6.

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.2 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.'1 submitted that thele are specific allegations against the petitionsrs and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminai Petition

06. r\ perusal of the entire record reveals that the majority of the allegations are primarily directed against accused No.1, the husband of respondent No.1. The record further discloses that respondent No l never resided in the matrimonial home after accused No.1 left for the USA. Petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are tlre aged parents of accused No.1 , and the petitioners- accused Nos.4 to 6 are the married sisters of accused No.1. The circunrstances that led for filing the present complaint is the conduct of the accused No.'1 , who was allegedly maintaining the extra-rnarital relationship with other woman. I I I I 5 -a

07. ln Geddam Jhansi and another v. The State of Telangana and othersl wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.3'1 , 32,33,34,35, 36 and 38 held that: "31 . lnvoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the penal code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facle case ls made out. lt applies with equal force when ciminal laws are invoked in domestic dlsputes. Criminalising domestic dlspufes without specific allegalions and credible materials to supporT the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. lnstitution of family consailules the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional assoctatlons. For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus. when famtly relationshlps are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, coutts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with suppofting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.

32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial dlspules, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not ' 2025 |NSC 160 .- \ ,.-' .i 6 come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute speclafors to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a cintinal act without there being specific acts aftributed to them. Furlher, 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 dlspufes shou/d be given the colour of criminality.

33. /t goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic sphere, whiclt do happen. ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Dom<>stic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. There>fore, such violence is not noticed by public at large except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus providing visible evidence by the victinr of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arduous, whiclt does nol necessarily mean that domestic violence does nof occur. ln fact, to deal with this pemicious phenomenon, stringent siafufes like Protection front Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since, violerrce perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing senbus consequences on the perpetrators, the coutts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be .struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, ail the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.

34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on fhe basls of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner to hurl allegations of 7 domestic violence and harassment against the other paftner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of acts which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegation of harassment without pointing out the spec,rcs against such perpetrators would not suffice, as is lhe case in respect of the present appellants. i5. We are, thLts, of the view that in ciminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific. as far as posslb/e, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indisciminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be siluallons where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.

36. Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean that relatives cannot be brought under the purview of the aforesaid penal provisions whea_ they have actively parlicipated in inflicting I \ 8 cruelty on the daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such allegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such members of the family or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a matrimonial discord and allegations made by an emotionally disturbed person. Each and every case of domestic violence will thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case.

38. We have also noted that the appellants do not live with the principal accused. While the marriage took place in Pondicherry and the complainant lived with her husband and mother-in-law in Chennai, the appellants are residents of Hyderabad As the appeilants do not stay together with the complainant and her husband and mother-in-law. to make the appellants as co-accused for alleged of{ences comrnitted in the matrimonial house of the complainant on the basls of very generalised allegations does not appear to be tenable."

08. lt is pertinent to note that majority of allegations pertains to the years 2016 to 2019. The present complaint was filed on

10.09.2020. There is unexplained delay of one year in lodging the FlR. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the old aged parents o, the accused No. 1. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 6 are married sisters of the accused No.1 and they are living with their husbands. lt is evident from the record that the respondent No.'l has filed a maintenance case vide IV,C.No.67 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda - 9

09. ln Disha Kapoor y. Stafe of lJfiar pradesh2 it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court at paragraph No.g that: "!. We cannot but also observe that there is no specific allegation of any physicat violence except for vague statements made about the petitioner having been beaten up, in which she suslarned a fracture and having been subjected to physical and mental torture. There is no evidence of a treatment undergone to substantiate the altegation; especially when the petitioner ls sard to have suffered a fracture."

10. lt is pertinent to note that even though the allegations of physical harassment are made but there is no medical evidence on record to prove the said allegations. Significanily, there are no specific, direct, or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet describing the manner in which the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 said to have subjected respondent No.1 to physical or mental harassment. All the substantial allegations appear to be directed solely against accused No.1. The charge sheet lacks any detailed particulars or instances of alleged harassment attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6.

11. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v' Stafe of ' nrR zozs sueReME couRT 2213 10 Telangana and anothef wherein at Paragi-aph Nos.18, 24.25, 28,29,31 & 32 it was held that: "18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnil'tus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 lo 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time. date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore. the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

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 FtR would indicate that no substantial anc| specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry /f rs a/so an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case aising out of a matrimonial clispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a we _ recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience. that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when donestic disputes arise out of a matrimoni'al discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusa uppotted by concrete evtdence or particularised llegations ca a basis fs7 671mtnal prosecu nnot form the tion. e6sls must e..<ercise tions uns t Aln 2ozs s UPREME C OURT 173 11 caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal proyisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassmenl of innocent family members. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appetlant 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 criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

28. The inclusion ol 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 dlspules across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Secfion 498A of the IPC as a loo/ for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial cortflicts. 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. Someflmes, recourse is taken to invoke Sectlon 498A of the IPC against the husband and his f amity in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife' Consequently, this Couft has' time and again' cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

29. We who ha contem remain comPla not the should are not. for a moment, stating that any woman s suffered cruelty in terms of what has been plated under Section 498A of the tPC should silent and forbear herself from making a int or initiating any criminal proceeding That is intention of our aforesaid observations but we not encourage a case like as in the present -'1 12 one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolutton of marriage sought by the first appellanl husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 49BA of the IPC is lodged l:y the latter. ln fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who rs subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometrmes it ls misused as in the present case. 31 Furlher, this Courl in Preeti Gqpta vs. Slale of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the coLLrts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealinq with matrintonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassment by the futsband's close relatives who had been tivinq in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The attegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.B2 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with utterior motives to settte personal scores and grudges against appe ant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein Hence, the present case at hand falls *,rn,n (7) of ittustrative parameters hightighted in Snala,t''lai "r1"go,* Therefore, the High Court, in the present """" "roa in not exercising the powers available to it under Seclaon 482 CrpC and thereby, faited to O,luu"J, abuse of the Couft's process by continuin.q the criminal prosecution against the appsllsn6.,, 12. ln the present case, as observed supra, the petitioners_ accused Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents ofthe accused No.1, Nos.4 to 6 are marrierj sisters of the and the petitioners_accused -/ -, 13 accused No. 1 and they are living along with their respective families. There are no specific roles attributed to the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 6, nor there are any direct or pa(icular allegations made against them. A perusal of the charge sheet further reveals that the investigation has not yielded any conclusive findings regarding the allegation in connection with any alleged demand for additional dowry. lt is important to note that the conduct of the accused No.1 was being questioned by the respondent No. 1 in her complaint, on the aspect of alleged extra-maritar rerationship with another woman Furthermore, the absence of specific and distinct allegations against the petitioners renders the accusations vague and unsubstantiated. As such, the material on record does not discrose the essentiar ingredients necessary to attract the offences alleged against the petitioners_ accused Nos.2 to 6. lVlere mentioning of the names of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, who are parents and sisters of the accused No.1 in the charge sheet, without attributing any specific ) \ overt act or role to them, is not sufficient to sustain prosecution. It is pertinent .to note that vague, omnibus, and generalized allegations which are devoid of specific instances of cruelty or harassment, particularly, when unsupported by material evidence, do not satisfy the legal requirements under Sections 498-4 and 342 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. L4 of the case including Supreme

13. tn view of the facts and circumstances the settled principle of law taid down by the Honourable Court of lndia in the above decisioris' this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of clear' direct' and substantive atlegations indicating the involvement of the Nos'2 to 6' the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law Therefore' the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 6 are liable to be quashed' 14 Accordingly' the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 6 inC.C.No.36g6of2020pendingonthefileofthelearnedV Additional J udicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal' are herebY quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications if any' shall stand closed ' i\S \\ \\ sd/- ISTAN A. JAYASREE T REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/i To,

1. The V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class atWarangal. 2. The Station House Officer, WPS Police Station, Warangal. 3 Qne CC to Sri Ennamsetty Akhil, Advocate fOpUCl 4' Two ccs to the pubric pr6secutor, High coirt oi i6tangana at Hyderabad 5. Two CD Copies IOUT] SM/kam s HIGH COURT DATED: 16t0712025 t h.= 5t{, /{ 2 0 t[I P25 (1\r' ,.',: :+ ORDER CRLP.No.1719 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q