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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of petitioner herein in CC No. 3741 of 2021 on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Crass Magistrate at Warangal, pending disposal of the main criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of SRI K. RAJASHEKAR representing Sri G RANDEEP RAJ ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the SMT S.MADHAVI ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1637 ot 2022, ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Seclion 482 of Cr P C by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking t<r quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3741 of 2021 c n the file of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class lVlagistrate at Warangal, registered for the offences under Sections 498-4 and 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for shor,' 'the Act'). 02 Heard l\tlr. K.Rajashekar, learne j counsel representing lVr G.Randeep Raj, counsel for the pr,rtitioner and [/lrs. S.lVladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutcr appearing for the respondent No.1-State. No representation >n beha,lf of respondent No.2. Perused the record. 03 The petitioner-accused No.1 is the hu:,;band of de faclo complainant. The gist of the complaint is that the marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 was performed with the 2nd respondenlde facto complainant on 3'l .03.2019. Al the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. They lived happily for some time and subsequenfly, the respondent 2 No.2/de facto complainant blessed with a son. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused No.1 and his parents harassed lhe de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and they threatened to perform another marriage of the petitioner-accused No 1, if she will not bring additional dowry and also threatened to kill her. 04 lt is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, oniy to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between lhe de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No. l. There are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.1. The present complaint has been filed by the de facto complainant on 14.09.2021 i.e. after issuance of legal notice, dated 07.06.2021 by the petitioner/accused No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused No.1 also filed F.C.O.P.No.305 of 2021 seeking dissolution of marriage between the petitioneriaccused No.1 and the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. The respondent No.2/de facto complainant is facing charge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for allegedly causing the death of father of the petitioner/accused No.1 . Hence, all the allegations are levelled 3 against the petitioner/accused No.1 only to settle tlte personal scores of respondent No.2. The contents of the c,omplaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections, 498-A and 506 c,f IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash he criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No 1, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decisic n in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. Sfate of Telangana and anotherl , 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 app,zllant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment, She has a/so not mentioned the time, date, place, or manrer in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegettions indicating their active involvement shoulct be nipped in the bud. /t ls a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is cften a tendency to implicate all the members or the husband's family when domestic drspufes aris,= out '202a trusc as3 4 of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or paiicularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the tegatprocess and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent famity members. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who 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 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. 31 . Further, this Court in preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 66T hetd that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration w,hile dealing with matrimonial cases. The ailegations of harassment by the husbands c/ose relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circu mspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 fited by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settte personal scores and grudges against appeltant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case af hand falts within category 0 of illustrative parameters highlighted in B"/tdjan Lat. Therefore, the High 5 Court, in the present case, ened in not exercising the powers available to it under Secflon 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prose:ution against the appellants." 05 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor f )r the State submitted that there are specific allegations rgainst the petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come o.rt only after conducting full-fledged trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. lt is also apparent on the face of the record that the accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P No.305 of 20,21 seeking dissolution of marriage between the petitioner/acr:used No.1 and respondent No.2. The present calendar case filed by the respondent No.2 appears to be counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the accused lr,o.1 as the complaint for the offence under Section 498-4 and 506 of lpC is lodged later. There .are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of mental and physical .rarassment caused by the petitioner-accused No.1. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete ervidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis frlr criminal prosecution. 5

07. IVlaking vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, 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. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 49gA of the lpC 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. lnsofar as Section 506 of IPC is concerned, except stating that petitioner/accused No.1 at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3 abused her, there are no specific details as to in what manner, the petitioner/accused No.1 caused criminal intimidation against the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. lVloreover, it is the case of the petitioner/accused No.1 that the respondent No.2 is responsible for the death of father of the petitioner/accused No.1. Therefore, the essential ingredients required for constituting the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, the petitioner/accused No..l cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same l would be an abuse of process of law in the absenct> of specific allegations made against him

08. ln the Judgment of Sfafe of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: The following categories of cases can be stat'td by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary ['ower under Article 226 or the inherent powers ttnder Section 482 Cr.P C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process c f any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of lustice, though it may not be posslb/e to lay dowr any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of n,yriad kinds of cases wherein such power shouid be exercised: (1 ) Where the allegations made in the First lnformation Reporl or the complaint, even il they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any of,ence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First lnforn ation Report and other materials, if any, accompatying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Ltnder Section 156(1) of the Code except under an vder of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) ofthe Code; 'rssu scc 1cri1 +zo 8 r (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppott of the same do not dlsciose 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 offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate 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 no prudent person can ever reach 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 specr7rb provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly atten.ded 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.

09. ln the present case on hand, the respondent No.2 filed the present criminal case against the petitioner/accused No.1 after the filing of F.C.O.P. by the petitioner/accused No.'1 seeking dissolution of marriage. As observed supra, on 9 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 petitic ner-accused No.1. lt appears that the present criminal pror;eedings are instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengrlance on the petitioner-accused No.1 and with a view to spik'r him due to private and personal grudge. Therefore, the pres"-'nt case falls under the ambit and parameters of point No.7 o'the Bhaian Lal's case cited suPra.

10. ln view of the facts and circumstance; of the case including the settled principle of law laid d':wn by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above ciecisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No' amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedingts against the petitioner-accused No.1 are liable to be quashed

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C C.No.3741 of 2021 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class tt/lagistrate at Warangal, are hereby quashed. 10 r' '.., As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed ./ To, //TRUE coPY// sbl- e.c. VYJAYANTHT S ISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER

1. The V Additional Judicial First Crass Magistrate at 2. The Station House Officer, WPS Warangal City Warangal, District 3. One CC to SRl. G RANDEEP RAJ Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at angal, District Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Gopies qft-- HIGH COURT DAf EO:2810412025 t, ORDER CRLP.No.1637 of 2O22 o tHE S 14 15- e ) 1ti JUl\l m 1 ("( ,/ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION fr^ >5' A V t

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 petitioner herein in CC No. 3741 of 2021 on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Crass Magistrate at Warangal, pending disposal of the main criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of SRI K. RAJASHEKAR representing Sri G RANDEEP RAJ ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the SMT S.MADHAVI ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1637 ot 2022, ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Seclion 482 of Cr P C by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking t<r quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3741 of 2021 c n the file of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class lVlagistrate at Warangal, registered for the offences under Sections 498-4 and 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for shor,' 'the Act'). 02 Heard l\tlr. K.Rajashekar, learne j counsel representing lVr G.Randeep Raj, counsel for the pr,rtitioner and [/lrs. S.lVladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutcr appearing for the respondent No.1-State. No representation >n beha,lf of respondent No.2. Perused the record. 03 The petitioner-accused No.1 is the hu:,;band of de faclo complainant. The gist of the complaint is that the marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 was performed with the 2nd respondenlde facto complainant on 3'l .03.2019. Al the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. They lived happily for some time and subsequenfly, the respondent 2 No.2/de facto complainant blessed with a son. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused No.1 and his parents harassed lhe de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and they threatened to perform another marriage of the petitioner-accused No 1, if she will not bring additional dowry and also threatened to kill her. 04 lt is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, oniy to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between lhe de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No. l. There are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.1. The present complaint has been filed by the de facto complainant on 14.09.2021 i.e. after issuance of legal notice, dated 07.06.2021 by the petitioner/accused No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused No.1 also filed F.C.O.P.No.305 of 2021 seeking dissolution of marriage between the petitioneriaccused No.1 and the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. The respondent No.2/de facto complainant is facing charge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for allegedly causing the death of father of the petitioner/accused No.1 . Hence, all the allegations are levelled 3 against the petitioner/accused No.1 only to settle tlte personal scores of respondent No.2. The contents of the c,omplaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections, 498-A and 506 c,f IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash he criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No 1, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decisic n in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. Sfate of Telangana and anotherl , 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 app,zllant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment, She has a/so not mentioned the time, date, place, or manrer in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegettions indicating their active involvement shoulct be nipped in the bud. /t ls a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is cften a tendency to implicate all the members or the husband's family when domestic drspufes aris,= out '202a trusc as3 4 of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or paiicularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the tegatprocess and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent famity members. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who 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 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. 31 . Further, this Court in preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 66T hetd that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration w,hile dealing with matrimonial cases. The ailegations of harassment by the husbands c/ose relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circu mspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 fited by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settte personal scores and grudges against appeltant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case af hand falts within category 0 of illustrative parameters highlighted in B"/tdjan Lat. Therefore, the High 5 Court, in the present case, ened in not exercising the powers available to it under Secflon 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prose:ution against the appellants." 05 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor f )r the State submitted that there are specific allegations rgainst the petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come o.rt only after conducting full-fledged trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. lt is also apparent on the face of the record that the accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P No.305 of 20,21 seeking dissolution of marriage between the petitioner/acr:used No.1 and respondent No.2. The present calendar case filed by the respondent No.2 appears to be counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the accused lr,o.1 as the complaint for the offence under Section 498-4 and 506 of lpC is lodged later. There .are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of mental and physical .rarassment caused by the petitioner-accused No.1. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete ervidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis frlr criminal prosecution. 5

07. IVlaking vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, 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. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 49gA of the lpC 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. lnsofar as Section 506 of IPC is concerned, except stating that petitioner/accused No.1 at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3 abused her, there are no specific details as to in what manner, the petitioner/accused No.1 caused criminal intimidation against the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. lVloreover, it is the case of the petitioner/accused No.1 that the respondent No.2 is responsible for the death of father of the petitioner/accused No.1. Therefore, the essential ingredients required for constituting the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, the petitioner/accused No..l cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same l would be an abuse of process of law in the absenct> of specific allegations made against him

08. ln the Judgment of Sfafe of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: The following categories of cases can be stat'td by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary ['ower under Article 226 or the inherent powers ttnder Section 482 Cr.P C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process c f any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of lustice, though it may not be posslb/e to lay dowr any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of n,yriad kinds of cases wherein such power shouid be exercised: (1 ) Where the allegations made in the First lnformation Reporl or the complaint, even il they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any of,ence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First lnforn ation Report and other materials, if any, accompatying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Ltnder Section 156(1) of the Code except under an vder of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) ofthe Code; 'rssu scc 1cri1 +zo 8 r (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppott of the same do not dlsciose 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 offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate 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 no prudent person can ever reach 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 specr7rb provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly atten.ded 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.

09. ln the present case on hand, the respondent No.2 filed the present criminal case against the petitioner/accused No.1 after the filing of F.C.O.P. by the petitioner/accused No.'1 seeking dissolution of marriage. As observed supra, on 9 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 petitic ner-accused No.1. lt appears that the present criminal pror;eedings are instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengrlance on the petitioner-accused No.1 and with a view to spik'r him due to private and personal grudge. Therefore, the pres"-'nt case falls under the ambit and parameters of point No.7 o'the Bhaian Lal's case cited suPra.

10. ln view of the facts and circumstance; of the case including the settled principle of law laid d':wn by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above ciecisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No' amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedingts against the petitioner-accused No.1 are liable to be quashed

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C C.No.3741 of 2021 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class tt/lagistrate at Warangal, are hereby quashed. 10 r' '.., As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed ./ To, //TRUE coPY// sbl- e.c. VYJAYANTHT S ISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER

1. The V Additional Judicial First Crass Magistrate at 2. The Station House Officer, WPS Warangal City Warangal, District 3. One CC to SRl. G RANDEEP RAJ Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at angal, District Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Gopies qft-- HIGH COURT DAf EO:2810412025 t, ORDER CRLP.No.1637 of 2O22 o tHE S 14 15- e ) 1ti JUl\l m 1 ("( ,/ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION fr^ >5' A V t