Further, this Courl in Preeti Gupta v. Sfate of Jharkhand

2. Smt. A. Rekhasri, Wo. T. Pradeep, Age. 30 yrs Occ. House wife, R/o. H.No 557/8, Venu Colony, (santhosh nagar),Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS 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 in CC.No.14612O22 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class lrr'lagistrate at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District l.A. NO:2OF 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petrtioners .r' in CC.No.146/2022 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gadwal, Jogularnba Gadwal District, during the pendency of Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Animi Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. S. Madhavi, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2743 ot 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.'146 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-,4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short'the Act').

02. Heard Sri P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 and Smt.S.tMadhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1-State Though the notice sent to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 has refused to receive the same and there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 either in person or through counsel, as such, this Court after recording her absence proceeded to dispose of the present matter on merits.. Perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of accused No.'1 with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 2 -I

28.07.2017 . They lived happily only for about three months Thereafter, they shifted to l"lyderabad in connection with the employment of accused No.1 , and resided in a rented house Accused Nos.2 and 3 used tc visit their residence oftenly. A few days later, accused No,2 came to Hyderabad and started residing with thenr. After about six months, accused No.'1 allegedly began returning home in a drunken condition and subjected respondent No.2 to physical harassment by beating hei' and abusing her in vulgar language, while demanding that her parents purchase a new house in Hyderabad for him. Accused Nos.2 to 6, who are family members and close relatives of accused No.1, are alleged to have supported and encouraged accused No.1 in harassing respondent No 2 and in demanding a new house as additional dowry. They also directly harassed her by abusing her in vulgar language. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 6 sent respondent No.2 back to her parental horne with a demand that she should agree for mutual divorce if she failed to fulfill their demands Hence, respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences punishable under Section 498-4 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that - 3 they never harassed the respondent No.2. The petitioner- accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the father of accused No.1, the petitioner-accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1 . The petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No.'l . The petitiorrers never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-4 of IPC and 3, 4 of the Act

05. The learned counsel for petitioners further submits that when accused No.1 filed Divorce Petition on 12.02.2021 against respondent No.2 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint against accused No.1 and the petitioners herein only with a view to harass them. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Sfafe of Telangana and another' wherein the ' arR 2025 suPREME couRl 173 4 \I - Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph Nos.1B, 25 & 3'l held that "!1. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are iague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No 7 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 harassmenl. She has a/so not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner 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 oLtt of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judiciat experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic dispules arlse out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised anLl sweeping accusations unsupporled by concrete evidence or pafticularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Corrrls musl exercise caution in such cases Io prevent mlsuse of legal provisions and the legai process and avoid unnecessary harassntent of innocent family members. ln the presenl case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been liwng 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 iaw in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 5

31. Further, this Courl in Preeti Gupta vs. Sfate of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's c/ose relatives wh'o 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."

06. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

07. lt is not in dispute that the accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are residing in a rented house at Hyderabad in view of the employment of the accused No.1. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners- accused Nos 2, 4 to 6 were living separately at Amaravathi Village of Manopad Mandal from the accused No.1 and respondent No 2. Therefore, it is crystal clear that petitioners- accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 are residing separately from the matrimonial home of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 6 0B Except alleging that the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 supported and encouraged accused No' in harassing the respondent No.2 demanding additional dowry, there are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6. lt is an admitted fact that accused No,'1 has filed Divorce Petition against respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 has filed Maintenance Case against accused No.1 and those cases are still pending for adjudication. The said Divorce Petition was filed on 12.02 2021 and thereafter the present criminal case has been filed by the respondent No 2

09. As observed supra, the respondenl No.2 has made generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations against the petitioners- accused Nos.2, 4 to 6, Making such 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 49BA 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 V the husband and hrs family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members. Hence, the petitioners- accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process.of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

10. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Courl of lndaa in the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conlinuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 are liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly. this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2. 4 to 6 in C.C.No.146 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. I SDi. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR & SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, ThelAdditionalJudicialFirstclassNlagis(rateatGadwal'Jogulamba Gadwal DrstricL Yfr,i'sijt[,i uJ"te of[icer. Police Statron Gadwal-Town Two ccs to the P.,blic e'ot"tutJ.lirlgX'biJi-oi r"i'ng'n"' Hvderabad (OUT) b?'ic ,o SRI P Animi Reddv Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies 1

2. 3. 4 5 HIGH COIJRT DATED:0910912025 I ORDER CRLP.No.2743 of 2024 . ,ri- :; IA 'J t) l0 0[T 2q5 /) ( \ '- .),1-t ctl F-C !' r! z'l CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED