The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 974 ot 2020, on the file of the Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, as against the petitioners/Accused No. 4 and 5. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No.4 and 5 in C.C. No. 974 of 2020, on the fite of the Xil Additional Metropolitan r:,.'r'::--::L--_-]ffi ) lvlagistrate, Kukatpally, at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, and to pass, Pending disposal of CRLP 1715 of ZO22, on the file ot the High Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusinc the Memorandum of Grounds of ilriminal Petition and upon hearrng the arguments of Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate for the petitioners and Mrs li.Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutc,r, for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER -t*rr & THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI TfoN No.1715 0t 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C C.No.974 of 2O2O on the file of the Xll Additional Metropolitan [\4agistrate, Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, pertaining to Crime No.B57 of 2018 of p.S. Gachibowli, registered for the offences under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.tvladhavi, learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are the married elder sisters of accused No.1. The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd responden! de facto complainant has performed her second marriage with accused No.1 on 30.07.2017. At the time of marriage, ce(ain amount of dowry was given. After marriage, accused No.'l never advanced for sexual life with the de facto complainant and he used to sleep along with his 2 e parents. All the accused inclucling the petitioners-act: useci Nos'4 and 5 harassed the de faclo complainant physically and nrentally demanding additional dowry.

4. It is r:orrtended by the learned counsel for 1>etitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de lacfo complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial drsputes between the de facfo complairrant and accused No.1. lt is contended that the petrtioners herein are s'aying at USA 1-he marriage of accused No.1 and de facto complainarrl rr'ras peTformed on

30.07 2017. The petitioner-"""rn"d No.4 came to lrdia on 18'07 2017 and left to USA on 01.09.2017. The petitioner-acctlsed No.S came to lndiaon26.0120lTandlefttoUSAon2T'05201fie,priortothe marriage of accused No.1 anci cle facto complzrinant ln fact' the petitioner-accused No.5 has not attended their rrrarriage When the petitioners herein are staying away from the de fat;f,rr complainant and accusedNo.l.therewasnooccasionornecessityforthemtoharassthe de facto complainant. The present complaint was filerd in 2018, whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant with accused No 1 was performed i-r 2017 and if there was really harassment from the riate of marriage, the de facto cclmplainant should have complained mucl'r earlier. The reason for such delay also remained unexplained. lt is ,rlso contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are zrttributed against the =ffi*.--./ a t I i I I I 3 petitioners herein. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto complainant from the date of her marriage with accused No.l 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, she prayed to dismiss ttre petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-4 of IPC is extracted hereunder: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relattve of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman lo cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fne. Expianation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-G)any wilf ul conduct which is of such a nature as ts hkely to dnve the woman to commit sutade or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any propefty or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 4 t

7. ln the judgment of Sfate of Haryana and othets v. CH'Bhaian Lal and others' , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follo,'rs: The fotlowing categories of cases can be stittcC by way of illuslration wherein the extraordinary power under i\iicle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 C( l).(). can be e'xer crsed by the High CoutT either to prevent ttltuse of lhe process of any Cowt or otherwtse lo secure lhe e rris of justice, though it may not be possibte to tay clown any p'ecise' clearly <lefined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of r','riad kinds of cascs wherein such power should be exerciseci; (1) Where the allegations made in the Firs;' lnformation Repoft or the comptaint, even if they are takett at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any oflence or make out a case against the accused; i2) Where the altegations in the First lnforma!'("1 Repori and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R c''-'t rlol dlsc/ose ,z sognizable offence, jus!:iying an investigat oit by police tfficers under Section 156(1) of the Code esceDt under an crdcr of a Magistrate within the purview of Sectro ' 155(2) of the Code (3) Where the uncontroveied allegations macle in the FIR or conplaint and the evidence collected in supporl c,r the same do nof disc/ose the commission of any offence at (l make out a case against the accused; (4) Where the allegatons in lhe FIR do lj.' consttlute a cogntzable offence but cortstitute only a ;.c'rt-cognizable offittce, no investigation is permitted by a poln:e ctfficer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated unde')ection 155(2) of lhe Code. (5) Where the ellegations made in the FIR or complaint are so 'abstrrd anct inherently imprcbable on lhe' bas''s of which no prudent person can ever reach a iust conclusi()t] that there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding against the accr;sed; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in. any 'piovisions of the Code or the conaerned Aci ''tnder which a 'crininal proceecting is instituted) to the i'tstitttion and cotltinuance of the proceedings and/or where th'''re is a specific .o.f ' L9g2 scrc (c,;),t:c q-L- .;'i,f,,,J.it, e*if .,' , 5 provision in the Code or lhe concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the gnevance of the aggrieved pafty; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended 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.

8. ln the judgmenl of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Stafe of Telangana and anothe/, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.31 and 32 held that: "31. Fufther. this Coutl in Preeti Gupta vs. Sfafe of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the coutTs have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Ihe all--gations of harassment by the husband's close 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 ihe complainanl are required b be scrutinized with grea! care and circumspecton.

32. We, therefore, are of the opnion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior mottves lo sell/e personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case al hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highltghted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Cour1, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

9. ln numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases held that making 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 t zo2,r tNSc asi .q]LIilF'B -ii -''-C;- . \.. - 6 498-4 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek cornpliance rruith the unreasonable demands of a urile Therefore' the Courts are bound to ensure vrhether there is anv prima facie case against the husband and his family nrembers befo e prosecutirrg lhe husband ancl his family menrbers.

10. ln the present case, admittedly, there is rro dispute with regard to the second marriage hetvueen the de facto corrplainant and accused No.1. On a perusal of the allegations made in the Flti or charge sheet' even if they are taken ot-t face value, no sr':bst antial and specific allegationshavebeenmadeagainstthepetitioners-]ccuSedNos.4and 5'exceptstatingthattheyhaveharassedlhedefectocomplainantby demandingadditionaldowry.Thedefactocomplainanthasnotprovided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment meted out by the petitioners-accrtsed Nos 4 and 5 T rough the marriage had happened in the year 2017,lhe present complairt was lodged in the year 2018.lf really there was harassment from the cate of her marriage' thedefactccomplainantoughttohavecomplainecmuchearlier,The reason for rJelay in lodging the complaint remainec unexplained. lt is also an admitted fact that the petitioners herein, who a'e the married elder sisters of accused No.1, are residing at USA and tl'ey are staying away from the family of de facto corrplainant and r<;cused No l The .:'ffi7 +-El- .- G 7 petitioners cannot be subjected to prosecution, merely basing on the bald averments of harassnrent

11. For the foregoing reasons ancl in view of the judgments referred to above, the petitioners cannot be dragged into criminal prosecutton and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed'

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 4 and 5 in C C No 974 of2O2OonthefileoftheXll.AdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate, Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District Pending miscellaneous applic;-rtions. if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY/, SD/. M DEPUTY OHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR SECTTON OFFICER To, Kukatparrv' a , llBJ:tls:A':16: H:[3i"J[11"i'asistfate', 2. The Station House Officer' Gachibowli Police Station' Cyb 3. One CC to Sri K' Venumadhav Advocate IOPUCI 4 Two CCs to the P-ublic Prosecutor' High Court for the t Prashanth Nagar' erabad State of Telangana' HYderabad [OPUCI

5. One spare coPY f4- {1 ',, ;'i ,..\ '7 '.:--..s, 25 r,[n 2g5 .'2. i. {., .\ $. .. ./) -. '\:. - \- r,. .-.-. .,-.;- ,,,,-1 n -.. HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 ORDER CRLP.No.1715 o12022 Allowing the Criminal Petition (+ 2-h t yl.