High Court · 2025

lriledchal-lVlalkajgiri District, High Court at Hyderabad. RESPONDENT

2. Smt. Kashampogu Sudha, Wo Dharani Samuel Eleazer, Age about 31 years, Occ. lVlandal Planning and Statistical Officer, Rl/o Srinivasapuram Colony, Ramanthapur, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri DistrictTS. ...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO.COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C No. 9490 of 2021, On the file of lX Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-XX|X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B Nagar, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be stay of all further proceedings in C.C No. 9490 of 2021, on the file of IX Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXIX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B Nagar, including the arrest of the Petitioners, pending disposal of the main criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lv]emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. UNNAM LAW FIRlv, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and of Sri G. Abbul Khader Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.(Nc Representation) The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI TION No.1783 o12022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P-C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C C.No 9490 o'f 2021 on the file of the lX Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXIX Additional Metropolitan [Vlagistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, pertaining to Crime No.8B1 of 202'1 of P.S. Uppal, 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, 196 1 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.t\Iadhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.4 is the husband of the petitioner-accused No.3. The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant was married to accused No.'1 on 08.04.20'1 5 and it was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. They lived happily for few days. Thereafter, on the instigation of accused No.2-mother of accused No.1 and petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4, I I ) i I t ,t I \. \ -- rffi"i . ' "#t*a- .:.Ft'i 2 accused No.1 started harassing rhe de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry.

4. lt is contenrred by the rearned counser for petitioners that the petitioners are innccent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de faclo complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between lhe de facto complainant and accused No.1. lt is contended that the petitioners herein are staying away from the de facto complainant and accused No 1, therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the cle facto complainant. The present complaint ',/as filed in 2021, whereas, the marriage of de facto complarnant with ar:cused No.1 was performed in 2015 and if there was really harassment 'rom the date of marriage, the de facto complainant should have complained much earlier. The reason for such delay also remained unexplained. lt is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acls are attributed to them. Thus, 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 lhe de facto complainant from the date of her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. lt,s further contended that all the allegations levelled in -ErdF;=fsl*!/ -/ :i.,ie . .i., - / -- the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, 3 and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the 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 relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelly shall be punished with rmprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-(p)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman lo commit suicide or lo 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 unlavvful demand for any propefty or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related lo her to meet such demand.

7. ln the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and otherst, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Couft either to prevent abuse of the process of any Coun or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be posslb/e to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or ngid formulae and lo give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First lnformation Report ot the complaint, even if they are taken at their face ' rsoz scc icriy az6 i i 4 value.and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make oit a case'against the accused' (2) Where the allegations in the First ttlformatiotl Report and other malerials, if any, accontpanying the F l.R da not disclose .-cogn,z lhle offence. justitying art trtvestigalrcn bv polrce a otttcers t.nder Seclian 156(t) ot the Code except irdu, uu order of a Magistrate within the puruiew of Section l SS(2) of the Code: (3) Where the uncontroverle(l altegations made in the FtR or complaint and the evdence coltected in supporl of the same do noi dtsc/ose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (4) Where. the atlegations in the FIR clo r.tot constitute a cognizable offence btl constitute only a non_cognizable offence, nc investigation is permitted by a police officei without an order cf a Magistrate as contemplatecl under Saction 155(2) of the Coce. (5) Where the allegations ntade in the FtR or complaint are so absurd and inherentty improbabte on the basis of which no prudent petson can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an erpress /egai bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Co(te or the concerned'Act (urrcler iuhich a criminal L roceedng rs utstituted) to the irtstitution ancl cottlinuartce of the proceeclings and/or where lhere is a specific provision in the Code or the concented Act. providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrteve(t pafty, (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifes y attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maticiously instituted with an ulterior motive for wre,-aking vengeanc; on the accused and with a view to spite him iue to-private and personal grudge.

8. ln the judgmenl of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Sfate of Telangana and anothe/, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.3'l and 32 held tnat: "31. Furlher, this Coutl in prceti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 .SCC 662 hetd that the courls have to be extrimety careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must :202+ INSC:95i 5 take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. fhe allegations 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 restded would have an entiely different complexrcn. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No 2 was initiated with ttlterior motives to setlle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and hB family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, 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 Courl s process by continuing the crimtnal prosecution against the appellants."

9. ln numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Cou(, 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 498-4 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 the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members

10. ln the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 and it was also an arranged marriage, A perusal of the record would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the \ \ \ I I t t ! I ;i I i 't i I. I I I I i ',i :1 'i i 6 petitioners herein, other than stating that they instigated accused No.1 in harassing the de facfo complainant by demanding more dowry. Though ,l I the marriage had happened in the year 20'1 5, the present complaint was \,..?;. \ lodged in the year 2021 .fhe reason for delay in lodgtng the complaint remained unexplaired. lt rs also an admitted fact that the petitioners herein, who are the sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1 , are staying away from the family of de facto complainant and accused No.1 As seen from the record, it is clearly evident that even before the marriage of accused No.1 with lhe de facto complainant, the petitioner- accused No.3 is li',ring separately from her family on her job purpose The de facfo comclainant and accused No.1 have setup a separate family at Hyderabad. The petitioners cannot be subjected to prosecution, merely basing on the bald averments of harassment

11. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgment referred to above, the petitioners 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. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed fr, ffi, k idxe:]r'i'ilxtr ,xati r.r. 7 I

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.9490 of 2021 on the file of the lX Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXIX Additional lVletropolitan lVlagistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER .l

1. The XXIX Additional Metropolitan [Vlagistrate Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar at Hasthinapuram. To, , I I

2. The station House officer, UPPAL Police station, IVledchal- Malkajgiri District. 3. One CC to M/S. Unnam Law Firm, Advocate tOpUCI 4. One CC to Sri. G. Abbul Khader, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies d I ; t i# HIGH COURT DATED: 2010312025 I h ! t ORDER CRLP.No.1783 of 2022 _ .:-:_::.-, -- ,J 'r9 * 1 B ,ii]l 2025 a ,t s:;:,/ ,,/ I --j::.:.- i.f t ; , CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED