The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.G praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crJ'iminar petition, the High corrt m.y be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.p. No.1 s of 2022, on'ihe fire of rst Additional Judicial Magistrate of Firsf Class af Sangareddy. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.ci praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crtiminal petition, the High court may p]"?.:."0 to grant a stay of alt further proceedings including tt" ,"pp"rrun""tt 9u the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 in b.C. f.lo.t S of ZOZZ, on the file of lst Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sangareddy pending the disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M Naga Raghu, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER _.--:'1t-_ THE HONOURABLE SMT. JU$T|CE JUWADT SRtDEV| CRIMINAL PETITION 0.2903 of 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in CC.No.15 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial lVagistrate of First Class at Sangareddy The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (fof short 'the Act')

02. Heard Sri tVl. Naga flaghu, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.'l to 4 and Sri lVl.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional PubliQ Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.1. No represqntation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the repord

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitionEr-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnize{ on22.j1.2O1g.The couple initially lived together happrly for E few months However, it is alleged that thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 I 7 subjected the respondent No 2 to physical and mental harassment. lt is further alleged that in the month of January, the respondent No 2 noticed that the accused had mixed an unknown Polsonous substance in the milk and upon consuming a portion of the milk' she immediately vomited. Based on these allegations' the respondent No 2 lodged the present complaint alleging offences punishable under Section 498-A of the lndian Penal Code and Section 4 of the DowrY Prohibition Act 04 Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and that they never subjected the respondent No 2 to any form of harassment lt is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos l to 4 are the husband, sister-in-law of the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and respondent No.2, and that accused Nos 2 and 3 are aged about 50 and 63 years, respectively lt is further submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos l to 4 never harassed the respondent No.2, and that the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 4 never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and petitioner-accused No 1 The petitioners have never made any demand for dowry from the respondent No 2 There are no specific or substantive allegations against the petitione rF nor is there any medical evidence to support the proseqution's case. lt is further submitted that the contents of thp complaint and the charge sheet do not disclose the essentilal ingredients necessary to constitute the offences punishalle under Section 49g_A of IPC and Section 4 of the Act 05 With the above submipsrons, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos .l tp 4 while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court bf lndia in Dara Lakshmi ruarayana and others y. Stafe of Telangana and anotherl wherein the Honourable Suprpme Court of lndia at Paragraph Nos l8, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 & 32 held that: "18. A bare perusal ot the rtlR shows that the allegations made by respondqnt No.2 are vague and omnibus Othcr than clai[ning that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 ,"tpohd"rt No.2 has not instigated him to do provided any specific details, or described any pafticular instance of harassrienf. She has a/so not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which thc allegcd halafsmenl occurred. "o, ' ArR zo25 supREr\rE couR r 173 4 Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegation s.

24. lt.tsof ar as appellant tVos 2 to 6 are incer,rrrd. we find thttt they have no connectiori to the matter at hand anC have been dragged tnto the web of crime without any rhyme or reason A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant /Vos 2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appcllant No 1 for demanding more dowry. /t ls a/so an arlmitte d f act that tl'tey never resicled with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No 2 and their children Appellant Nos 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakat, Andhra Pradesh Appellttrtt Nos a lo 6 live in Nellore' Bcngaluru and Guntur respectivelY.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a crimtnal case arlslng out of a matrimonial dispute, withottt specific allegatiotts indicatrng their acttvc int'olventent shoulcl ba nipped in the bttd lt is a wetl-recognised fact' borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tenctency to implicate atl the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord' Such generalisecl and swecpirtg accu.safions unsuppofted by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecutton' Courts mtrst exercise caution in such cases fo prevent misuse of tegal provlsions and the legal, process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members ln the presenl case' appellant Nos.2 to 6 who are the members of the famity of appettant No 1 have been living in difterent cities and have not resided in the matrintonial house of appellant No' 1 and /: .], i 5 respondent No 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into cnminal proseclytion and the same would be an abuse of the pipcess of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. I

28. The inclusion of Section {9BA of the IPC by way of an amendment wad intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman Qy her husband and his family. ensuring swift ilttervention by the State. However, in recent yelars. as there have been a notable rise in m\trimonial dlsputes across lhe country. accompanied by growing discotd and lension within' the institution of marriage, consequently, thPre has been a growing tendency lo mlsuqe provisions like Secllon 49BA of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against th| husband and his family by a wife. Making vagye and generalised allegations during matrimonipl conflicts, if not scrutinized, witl tead fo th{ mlsuse of legal processes and an encouragerytent for use of arm lwisting tactics by a wife bnd/or her family. Somellmcs. rccourse is Lakeh to invoke Secllon 49BA of the IPC against thd husband and his tamily in ot dct to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a vtife. Consequently, this Court has, time and aqairl, cautioned aqainst proseculing the husband urc. ni, family in the absence of a clear prima faciettcase against them. 29 We are not, for a momept, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated undQr Section 4984 of the IPC should remain silent bnd forbear hersetf from making a complaint or inliilating any criminal proceeding. That is not h+ inbntion of our aforesaid observalions buti we should not encourage a case like as irl the present one, I \ 6 where as a counterblast to the petition for Jisso/utlon of marriage sought by the first atppettant-nusband of the second respondent i-"n"in, , complaint uncler Section 49BA of the llPC is lodged by the tatter. tn fact' the inseftion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who ts subiected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any propefty or valuable security in the form of dowry However' sometirnes it is mlsused as in the present case 31 . Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. Stale of itarkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 helcl that lhe oourls have to be extremely careful and cautious tn dealing with these complaints and mttst take pragiatic realties into consideration while dealing 'wrti matrimonial cases The allegations of harassment by the husband's c/ose relatives who had been living in dtfferenl cities and never visited or rarely visitia tne place where the complainant residei would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the contplainattt are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumsPection 32. We, therefore, are of the opiniort that the iipugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2- was initiated with utterior motives fo setl/e personal scores and grttdges against appe.llant No.1 and his family members i'e ' appellant Nos 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category @ of itlustrative parameters hightighted in Bhalan Lal Therefore the High Ciurt, in the present case, erred in not exerastng thte powers available to it under Secfion 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the cnminal prosecution ag ainst the appellants'" , / 1

06. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.'1 submittqd that there are specific allegations against the petitionerp, which are triable issues The truth or otherwise would conle out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Crlminal Petition

07. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet reveals that the petitioners-iaccused Nos 2 to 4 are the aged parents and unmarried sist I I Ero f the petitioner-accused No.1. Although it is alleged thatithey demanded additional dowry, the charge sheet does notj specify the quantum of the alleged demand. ln Disha Kapooy y. State of uttar Pradeshz it was by the Honourable Supreme Qourt at Paragraph No.g that: "9. We cannot but a/so obseri.rze that there is no specific allegation of any physicpl violence except for vague statements made about {he petitioner having been beaten up, in which she , sustarned a fracture and having been subjected to physical and mental tofture. There is no evidenpe of a treatment undergone to substantiate the pllegation; especiatty when the petitioner rs sard lo have suffered a Iracture."

08. ln the present case op hand, it was alleged that the respondent No 2 was adminisflered poison in the milk and i\ 'Atazo2s suPREtvtE couRr 2273 8 I suffered vomiting. However, there is neither any medical evidence nor any statement from a competent medical practitioner to substantiate this allegation lt/loreover' the charge sheet lacks specific details or descriptive particulars of any specific instances of harassment allegedly caused by the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 4' 09 Upon a careful scrutiny of the averments in the charge sheet, it is evident that, in order to substantiate the basic allegations against the petitioners/Accused Nos 2 to 4 for the alleged offences, the police ha're examined a total of eleven witnesses, out of which four are the complainant and her close relatives, who are admittedly interested witnesses; twoaremediatorstothepanchayat;oneisaneighbor,who appears to be a hearsay witness; two are panch witnesses; and the remaining two are police officials Significantly' no independent witness has been examined by the lnvestigattng Officer. The statements recorded under Section '161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicate that these witnesses neither directly observed nor had any personal knowledge of the alleged incidents' Furthermore, there is no statement on record from any competent medical practitioner to establish I 9 that the complainant was subjectgd to physical cruelty. Even the grave allegation of administqring poison through milk, which was specifically raised in the complaint, finds no I mention or corroboration in the qharge sheet, which is the I outcome of the investigation. i Such generalized and sweeping allegations, unsupporte d by any concrete evidence or specific particulars, cannot form the basis for the criminal prosecution of the petitioners-accqsed Nos.2 to 4

10. N/laking vague and gerheralised 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 andlor her family Sometimes, i recourse is taken to invoke Secti0n 498-4 of the IPC against I the husband and his family in ordpr to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a i I f Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting them. Hence, the pgtitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 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 i I I I I i l 10 (':f'

11. Except the bald allegations' there are no substantial or specific allegations have been made against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 4 The charge sheet does not attribute even a single specific instance of cruelty' harassment. or demand for dowry to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. In the absence of any cogent material or specific allegations constituting cruelty or harassment in connection u.rith dowry, subjecting the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 4 to the trial would be unjust and amount to abuse of the process of law.

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

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is padly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused ',ffisJ Ja*; / -

11. Nos.2to4inC.C.No.15of2O22onthefileofthelearnedl Additional Judicial tVlagistrate of First Class at Sangareddy' are herebY quashed

14. lnsofar as the petiftioner-accused No 1 is concerned, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with la1w, uninfluenced by any observationsmadeinthisorder,4ndtoconcludethetrialas expeditiously as possible However' the personal appearance of the petitioner-apcused No l before the learned trial Court shall stand diqpensed with' except when his presence is specifically requirQd during the course of the trial, subject to the conditionr that he shall be duly represented by his learned coun$el on each and every date of hearit'tg As a sequel, pending migcellaneous applications' any, shall stqnd,qlcaed A ASSISTA Sd/. T. SRIDEVI NT REGISTRAR //TRUE coPlY/, SECTION OFFICER To, The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate"sanlTld' +'n:3i,iili"i*gn'::::*?,1ij,';llil:::U:.]]f 3i?X1l*,",'' Two CCs to Public Prosecu Hvderabad [OUTI one CC to Sri M Naga Ragnu' Two CD CoPies AdvocatQ [OPUCI

1. a 3 4 6 HIGH COURT DATED: 2610A12025 ORDER CRLP.No.2903 ol 2024 ) ,1; 1-l\ ? [zqrc2t,25 ..\ lr, * &--,- -.\1 --:=:: I)a'i' * .;' ,:Q PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION