The High Court · 2025

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 dispense with the appearance of the petitioner in cc.No. 23712022 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior civil Judge cum Vlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District. at Kukatpally for the offences u/s. 4984 IPC and Section 386 4 of Dowry prohibition Act. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under section 482 of cr.p -c praying that r the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petitior the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in cc.N( 23712022 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior civil Judge cum VIll A jrjifisns; Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District. at Kukatpally foi the offe r(;es u/ss 49gA rpc and section 385 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act far as petitioner herein is concerned. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under section 482 ot cr.p.c praying that n the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition he High court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 27.03.2023. lA.No. 2 of zo23 in Crl.P.No.3048 ol 2O23 until further orders. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that r the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition the High court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 27 to3tzo23 r lA.No.2 of 2023 in Crl P.No. 3048 of 2023 until further orders and pass LA. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that , the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition tlre High court may be pleased pleased to extend the interim orders dated 27lc),2o2{ in lA No.2 of 2023 in Crl.P.No. 3048 of 2023 until further orders and pass I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, l-e High court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 27logt2oz4 ir n.No.2 of 2024 in Crl.P.No. 3048 of 2023 until further orders and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing rrr> rVremorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing t tt: arguments of Mr. S.Goutham, Advocate representing Ms. T.Swetcha, ,\dvocate for the Petitioner and smt s.Madhavi, Assistant public prosecutor. tligh court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the State/ Respo r<tent No.1 . The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3048 of 2023 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C C No.237 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Vlll Additional [Vletropolitan lVlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act') 02 Heard Mr.S.Gowtham, learned counsel representing NIs T.Swetcha, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2, Sri [/.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt S Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the respondent No 2 with the brother of accused No.2 was solemnized about twelve years ago After marriage respondent No 2 joined the family members of her husband 2 -- .1 \, -E at Nellore and the marriage was consummat( c at her in-laws house She lead happy marital life for a fev Cays only and thereafter the petrtioners-A'1 to A3 sta 1ed harassing respondent No 2 for additional dowry and I ways used to quarrel wrth her for petty issues Later the pe'i ioners-A2 and 3 started influencing 41lhusband of respond:Tt No.2 and in turn he used to harass the respondent No 2 mentally and physically. Upon being influenced by the peti'roner herein his brother used to harass respondent No.2 and also demanded additional dowry from her parents. Hence. tlre respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences I nder Sections 498-4 of IPC and sectrons 3 and 4 of the Act 04 Learned counsel for the petitioner sul rritted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the allegeJ offences and that he never harassed the respondent No 2 lt is submitted that the petitioner never lived under the same roof and hence the petitioner is no way concerned with the rl egations. The respondent No.2 and her husband are resi 1 ng separately since 2018. There are no specific allegation; except stating that additional dowry was demanded by thr petitioner and other family members and there are no deta rls anywhere in 3 the complaint about demand or receipt of additional dowry The petitioner-accused No.2 is the brother of accused No.1 and never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioner never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No.2. 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 sections 3 and 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No 2, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Stafe of Telangana and another' wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia held as under: "24. lnsofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into 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 Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. /t rs a/so an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No 1 and respondent No.2 and their children Appellant Nos 2 AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 4 I and 3 resided together at Guntaka Andhra Pradesh Appellant Nos.4 to 6 live it Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

25. A mere reference to the hames t f family members in a criminal case arising t,ut of a matrimonial dispute, without specific all 4Tations indicating their active involvement sht'Lld be nipped in the bud. lt is a well-recogni: e d fact, borne out of iudicial experience, that tnere is often a tendency to implicate all the metnbers of the husband's family when domesfic /sputes arise out of a matrimonial discoru Such generatised and sweeping acc t;ations unsupporled by concrete evider ce or particularised allegations cannot form t te basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must : <ercise caution in such cases to prevent misus< ,-:f legal provisions and the legal process ar s avoid unnecessary harassment of innocer-, family menbers ln the present case, appella ri rVos.2 to 6, who are the members of the ltnily of appellant No.1 have been living in oifferent cities and have not resided in the ma r;monial house of appellant No.1 and'respondtrt No 2 herein. Hertce, they cannot be drag'ted into crintinal prosecution and the same woutd be an abuse of the process of the law in the t lsence of specific allegations made against each of 28. The inclusion of Section 498A of th't IPC by way of an amendment was intended ro curb cruelty infticted on a woman by her t tsband and his family, ensuring swift interventi< r by the State. However, in recent years, as tht'te have been a notable rise in matrimonial lisptrles across the country. accompanied by !rowrng I discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. 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 4984 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

30. ln the above context, this Court in G V. Rao ys. L.H V. Prasad (2000) SCC 693 observed as follows: "12 There has been an outburst of matrimonial drsputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serlous proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the famity are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not \-l , (r, -t 6 be mentioned here for not encot r?gtng matrimonial litigation so that the parlies may ponder over their defaults and terminate their dlsputes amicabty by mutual ag'reement nstead of fighting it out in a courl of law where i takes years and years to conclude and in that I rlcess the pafties lose their "young" days in t t asing th6ir "cases" in different courts " 31 . Further, this Courl in Preeti Gupta v: Stafe of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held tttt the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in deating with these complaints and mt'st take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases The alle gations of harassment by the husband's close r'z'atives who harl been living in different cities an7 never visited or rarely visited the place wh t;e 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 t'at the impugned FtR No 82 of 2022 filed by resttndent No 2 was initiated with ulterior motives 'o settle personal scores and grudges against tcpellant No.1 and his family members ie, tppellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence' the present case at hand falls within categoty (7) of ill t;trative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal Tll(|refore' the High Courl, in the present case erntd in not exercising the powers avaitable to t under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed tc 2revent abuse of the Court's process by contir r''ing the criminal prosecution against the appellar t; " 7

11. ln the present case a/so, it is an admitted position that the appellants are residing at Hyderabad whereas the de-facto complainant stayed in her marital house at Guntur at the relevant point of time. She rs presently staying in IJSA, There is omnibus allegation against the appeilants that they too used to demand dowry or instigate accused nos. I to 3 who are not before us, in demanding l2 Considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the view, having relied on this Court's previous decisions in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) & Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), the present criminal case against the appellants deseryes to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and Criminal Case No. 359 of 2016 against the appellants is quashed 05 Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the accused persons along with petitioner have shown their real colors and started harassment. The accused Nos.2 and 3 always used to complain to husband of respondent No.2 with cruel intentions. Accused persons forced the respondent No 2 to move to the Telecom Department quarters of petitioner herein at Lakdikapool and stay there All the accused including petitioner used to harass respondent No 2 both physically and mentally and 8 -i has beat her several times Later respondent ltlo 2 requested her husband to shift their residence and t;cordingly the residence got shifted to another house at Gai iribowli and the petitioner herein also shifted his resil:nce to the neighbouring house and continued the hara ;s;ment. Further they were blessed with a boy child and durino lhe pregnancy she suffered many health rssues managrng lroth office work and household work but none of the petitione-s; helped her in any manner and with a cruel intention t rr>y forced the respondent No.2 and her child to lea re the house permanently. Though the parents of respor,cent No.2 and elders tried to convince the accused perso rri to allow the respondent No.2 to live with her husband anc ead happy life none of the accused listened and refused r:r bluntly and there are specific allegations against the pe:i:ioner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismr';; this Criminal Petition

06. Learned Assistant Public Prosecu'or for the State also prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition J 9

07. A perusal of the record discloses that there are no allegations against the accused No.2 who is the brother of accused No 1 that he instigated accused No.1 against defacto complainant/respondent No.2 for harassment of dowry there are no specific date or time and only vague and omnibus allegations are made against accused No.2 and no specific instances are made against the petitioner/accused No.2 who is brother of A1 without any basis and no material was placed by the prosecution with regard to specific instances. lt is apparent that he never resided in the matrimonial home of defacto complainant and her husband and he was working as JTO in telephone department Hyderabad and was residing separately.

08. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific detarls or descrrptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioner_accused No.2. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution. .-- \ J- ---al 10

09. tr/laking vague and generalised alleg,a:ions during matrimonial conflicts' if not scrutinized' will lead to tlre misuse of legal processes and an encouragement ior use c f arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family Sometimes' re( curse is taken to invoke Section 49BA of the IPC against the hr sband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife Therefore' the Courts are b ; lnd to ensure whether there is any pnma facie case against ti e husband and his family members before prosecuting the hr sband and his family members Hence' the petitioner-accused llo 2 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecutlon and the sar rtr would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of sJ ecific allegations made against each of them' 10 ln view of the facts and circurnstances of the case incruding the set.ed principle of law aid down by the Honourable SuPreme Court of lndia in the above dectston' this Court is of the considered opinion tha of the Proceedings amounts to abuse of Process of lav', therefore' the \o 2 are liable to proceedrngs against the petitioner-accuse( the Petitiorer-accused the continuation against No2 be quashed 11

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in C.C.No.237 of 2022 on the file of PrincipalJunior Civil Judge cum Vlll Additional tVetropolitan IVagistrate, Rangareddy District at Kukatpally, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/ K. BHAVANI SWAMY TANr REG|ST!4E- -' , i\"r,oN oFFrcER I -l I To, Rangareddy District. at Kukat"pally. 'l The Principar Junior civir Judge cum vilr Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate, 2' The station House officer, Miyapur porice station, Rangareddy District. 3. One CC to Ms T..Swetcha, Advocate tOpUCI 4. One CC to Sri M.Srinivas, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to the Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two Cd Copies. PSK /gh $> HIGH COURT DATED:281O712025 ORDER CRLP.No.3048 ot 2023 I r;..'.''.,,,'''.' 14 ilI )fl2q t.... r'.' '. \r-j- ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION q 'tat