The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.273 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court at Khammam. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 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 in C.C. No.273 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court at Khammam including appearance of the Petitioner/A3 pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Peri Prabhakar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr. M. Vivekanand Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETI TIO N No.1438 of 2022 ORDER: This Clrirninal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/ acr:r-tsed No. 3 seeking Io quash the proceedings in C'C'No 273 of 2021 on lhc lile ol le:rrnt:d Judicial Magistrate of First class-curn-Special Nlobile court at Khatnmam, registered for lhe offences llunishable rrnder Sections 498;\ ancl 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ln short'lPC') ancl Sectiorts 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (ln short 'l).1).Act'1. ) . W hcn he matler was taken up for l:onsiderat io -t or-r ,23.09.20i25, there was no representation on behalf of respondcnt No.2. To gi|e one more opportunity, the mattcr u'as postcd to 2r.Og.2O)5. On 25.09.2025 also, there was no rcpresentati'rn on bt:l'ralf of the respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mocle. To give one more opportunity, the matter rr"'as pos'-ed lo

08.l0-2025 u rder the caption "for orders". Evcn today also, tltcre is no rcpresent:rLion on behalf of the respondent No 2 in morning session or:rflernoon session, either ph1'sical11' or virtually llencc' r Lris cotrrt s lrol having any option exccpt to proceed with the lnatter o|L merlts

3. tlcarrl \4r.Pcri Prabhakar, learned counsel [or the pet.Lioner appcared thr:rugh video conference, and Mr.M.Vivekanand Iledrly, \ F--r ) Iearned Assistant Government Plcader appeared on behalf of respondent No. I State -

4.Learnedcounselforthepetitiorrersubmittcdthat.thepc|itioncr has not commit[ed any offence and shc was falscly implicated in the present case only on the ground that the petitioner is the sister of accused No. 1. Respondent No 2 has made omnibus allcgations against the petitioner that she is supporting accuscd No l in demanding additional dowry. 'l'he cntirc allegattot-ts arc lcveLlcd against the accused No. 1 onlY.

5.Hefurthersubmittedthatthepetitionerislivingscparatcly and she never harassed the respondent No 2 lor aclditional dou'ry' Hence, the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 5O6 ol the IPC and Scctions3and4ofD.P.ActdonolatLraCLagalnstthcpetitioner. The Investigating Ofhcer, without properly conductit-rg thc sheet for the aforesaid oll-ences investigation, filed the charge Hence, the continuation of the proccedings agait'r st thc pctltioner would amounts to a clear abuse of thc process of lau'

6. Per contra,learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that respondent No.2 had made specific allegations againsL the pe titiotlcr' Hence, the provisions of Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC ar-rd Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are attracted agairlst the pctiLioner' -) 1'he pctitioncr is not entitled to seek quashing of thc proceedi:rgs and lhr: crimltral ptrtition is liable to be dismissed'

7. Har,ing ,:onsidering rival submissions made lly the respective pirrtics :rnd ltpon perusal of lhe material availablc on record it is r<:r,ealecl i.hitt |cspondent No.2 marriage was perfornled u'ith ac:uscd No. 1 on 29.C+.2076. Subsequentiy, matrimonial disputes arose bctsccn thr:nt. According to the learned counsel lor the petitioner, rcsponrlcrtL f,lo.2 left lhc marital home of ar:cused No. 1 on l8.O+.2020 artd since then, both are living separalely'

8. From [h e perusal of the complalnt and the charge sheet, there ai-c: omniblrs allcgations are levelled against the petitioner' The only urllegation rna(1e against the petitioner is that she supported accused No. I in dcnranding additional dowry. (r. It is 1;crtinent to rnention that the 1au' governing the t:xercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr 'P 'C ' or thc ext.ra()rcL; n:ery writ jurisdiction under Article 226 i:: well settled br' ll-rc decision in Stcte of Haryana a. Bhoian Lall, s,hercin thr: Hon'bie Apex Court illustratively catalrgued r:ategories of cases warranting quashment. such as when thc allcgations taken at face value do not constitlrtc an offcrrcc- :Lrc absurd or inherenLly irnprobable, are actuated I ()91 SrLtrt) 'i) SC:Cl .:CS / 4 by maia hdes, or where continuance of proceedings would arnount to abuse of process, while cat tioning thtrt s ucl-r power rnust be sparingly invoked to s<:cr-lre . the cnds of' justrce.

10. It is also relevant to mention that in Geddarn Jhansi w. State of Telangan a2, tYte Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated thc principles that were invokcd to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 49a-A, 506; IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196 I , and the Dr.rrncst i<: Violence Act, 2OO5, in so far as tiaey reiated 1o the husbarnd's aunt and cousin, as the allcgations zrgainst Lhern were found to be omnibus and gencral, berelt oI specific: overt actS, resting merely on Ltearsay evidence, ald furthe:r weakened by the fact that they resided scparatcly lrolrt Lht: matrirnonial horne. The Cotlrt held that dragging such distant relatives into crirninal prosecution, in the absence of clear particulars of harassrnent or dowry derr-rand, scluarcJ.-v attracted tkre Bhajan LaI principles, and pcrmitting thc proceedings to continue would be nothing but an trt; use of' the process of law, though the trial against t he principal accr-rsecl the husband and rnother in-lau'' was :rllor'r'cd to proceed in accordance with law. :r 2025 SCC C)nLine SC 263 \ \ ) I L lrr tlre liqht of thc principles lard down by the Hon'bl,: Apex (lorrrl in thc c:rsc of Geddam Jhansi supra and also in the r:ase of Ch. Bhajan I.al, supra, this court is of the considered opinic n that conLinuance ol proceedings againsl the petitioners for the oTenccs unrler SecLiorrs 498 A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act s,orrlcL zrmount to abuse of process of law.

12. For rht: albresaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion tltL,. tL is a lit r:ersc to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash l.he proct:cdinqs iiqzunst the pcti lioner/ accused No.3.

13. In thc rtsult, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proce:dings against thr prrtiLioncr/accused No.3 for the offenccs undcr Se ctions 4 98 A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.p. .{ct in (1.C.No.273 ot'2O2l on the file of learned Judiciat Magistrate of First (llass-Crrr-n Spr:cial Mobilc Court at Khammam, are hereby quar;hcd. Miscr:ll: neous applications, pending i[ any, shall stand cl,rsccl. SD/- A.PRI\THIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR #TRT,,E COPY# To, 2 3 l$ECTION OI:FICER '1 . The Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class-cum-Specia j Mobile C,)urt at Khammam. The Station House Officer, Women Khammam police Station, Khe mmam Comm issione rerte. Two CCs to Assistant Government pleader, High Court for the S Hre of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Mr. peri prabhakar. Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copres w 4 ) it{l: 1t $\li s /- 6) t\ I ,, { DT:5P Ai HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 ORDER CRLP.No.1438 of 2022 t-\ ') ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ft\ IA tolYl'