Further, this CoutT in Preeti Gupta v. Slate of Jharkhand

statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourt-.may ;;';;;.;J1" quash the eiocleoinss in C C' No 554 o12021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Meipalli to secure-the ends of justice since the was tireo ov tnl n".pondenr No.2 with a malicious intention ;il;"lli";if aoainst all the family r"rn6" atteglng the offences under Sections 498-A IPC ;ffi $;,il;;irj;;,v P';hibition Act-wnich is nothins abuse or process of law and the Court t.A. NO: 2 0F 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C praying that in the .circumstances stateu in irre Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may to extend the interim order granted by this Hon'ble Court in ;;';i";.;J cir.F.r.rl.zogr ol 2023, dated 16-03-2023 until further orders' . 6 JS,J C .P.No.2693 of2023 (2) Where the allegations in the First lnformation Repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontroverled altegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collec6d in suppott of the same do not disclose 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 1 55(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basls 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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved pafty; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestty 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.

12. ln the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Stafe of Telangana and anothef, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.31 and 32 held that: t zoz+ rNSC 9s: ( l i I l i l t I I I I I 7 JS,J Crl.P.No.2693 ol 2023

31. Further, this CoutT in Preeti Gupta vs. Slate of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 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. Ihe 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 resided would have an entirely different complexion. 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.B2 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to seftle personal scores and grudges against appeltant No.1 and his 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 Bhaian 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 Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

13. 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 498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family l l 8 JS,J C .P.No,2693 of 2023 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.

14. 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 FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners herein, other than stating that they harassed the de_facto complainant by demanding more dowry along with accused No.'l . None of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them.

15. lt is also an admitted fact that the petitioners herein, who are the family members of accused No.1, are staying away from the family of de-facto complainant and accused No.1. The accused No.1 is living at Hyderabad and none of 9 JS,J Crl-P.No.2693 of 2023 the family members of accused No.'1 stayed with couple' The petitioners cannot be subjected to prosecution, merely basing on the bald averments of harassment.

16. For the foregoing reasons and in view.of the judgments 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 tl"ie petitioners are liable to be quashed.

17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petitions is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.554 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, tVletpalli. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3

4. 5M . The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Metpalli . The Station House Officer, Metpalli Police Station, Jagtial TWo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Sri V Rohith, Advocate [OPUC] . Two CD Copies -,:3:;:.:r l PiE S l^ ,€ (-\' ( { ) .) 1r [uE X6 e /r, * *,, O... - --:=:: _ ,n j C a A HIGH COURT DATED: 2010612025 ORDER CRLP.No.2693 of 2O23 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION f d b C4 I i t I i i I I I I I i I I I : I i I I I I I I l i t. i I r ' I ' I