The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Manisha Vilas Kadiyal @ Koli Veda, Wo Koli Rajesh, D/o Vilas Kadiyal, aged 32 years, Caste SC- Madiga, Occ Housewife, R/o Venkateshwara Colony, Armoor, Nizamabad District, Presently residing X- 64/'10, Godrej Station Side Colony, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli East Mumbat, Maharashtra - 400079 Mobile No. 7506751410 ...RESPONDENTS /COMPLAINANTS 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 quash the Proceedings in C. C. No. 301 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 6 herein to secure the ends of justice as the Respondent No. 2ldefacto complaint has filed the complaint with a malicious intention and oblique motive against all the family members alleging the offences under Sections 498- A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act which is nothing br-t abuse of process of Iaw and the Court. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in 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 C. C; No. 301 of 2022 on the file of Judicial [Vlagistrate of First Class, Armoor includirg appearance of the petitioners/Accused 2 to 6 herein pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Petition, the High Court may be pleased tlrat the interim order granted by this Hon'ble Court in Crl.P. No. 3113 of 2023 da'.ed 28-3-2023 may be extended until further orders. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Petition, the High Court may be pleased to exl.end the interim order granted by this Honorable Court in Crl.P. No. 3113 of 2023 dated 28-3-2023 until fu rther orders. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crinrinal Petition and upon hearing the arguinents of Sri V. RAVI KIRAN RAO, Senior Counsel representing Sri V.ROHITH, Advocate for the Petitioners and Smt. S.MADHAVI, the Assistant Public Pn)secutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER A THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3113 of 2023 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.301 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial [Vlagistrate of First Class, Armoor. The offences alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 are under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act')

02. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Rohith, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.lVladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State Perused the record.

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution rs that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 23.06.2019. They lived happily for some time. Subsequently, the accused Nos.1 to 6 allegedly subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment in connection with unlawful demands for dowry. lt is further alleged that the accused No.1 tcr 6 necked out the respondent No.2 for the purpose of additional dowry and also threatened that they , /\ 2 would perform another marriag,e to the accused trlo.1 . Aggrieved by the said harassment, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 498-4 of the lpC and Section 4 of the Act. 04 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and they never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. lt is subnritted that the petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner.-accused No.3 is the brother, the petitioner-accused No.4 is the sister-in- law, the petitioner-accused No.5 is the sister, ancl the petitioner- accused No.6 is the brother-in-law of the accus;ed No..l . The petitioner-accused No.2 is aged about 62 years and is residing at Yedpally [Vlandal, Nizamabad District. The pet tioner-accused No.3 is residing at Metpalli in Jagtial District, whiler the petitioner- accused No.4 is residing at Namdevwada, Nizamabad. The petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 6 are residing at Sai Nagar, opposite Vishva Vikas High School, Nizamabacl. lt is furlher submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are residing separately from the accused No.1 and the resporrdent No.2 and have never interfered in their matrimonial affairs. The petitioners have never demanded any dowry from respondernt No.2 or her 3 parents. There are no specific or particular allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. Respondent No.2 filed maintenance, and domestic violence cases against the accused vide M.C.No.'1 4 of 2022 and D.V.C.No .16 of 2022, which are pending. The contents of the complaint and the charge sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients required to attract the offence under Section 498-4 of the lpC or Section 4 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6.

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which are triable issues. The truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 were residing separately from accused No.1 and respondent No.2 at different locations, namely: Yedpally Mandal in Nizamabad District, Metpalli in Jagtial District, Namdevwada in Nizamabad, and Sai Nagar, opposite Vishva Vikas High School, Nizamabad, respectively. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners_accused 4 Nos.2 to 6 were not living with the matrimonial ccuple and were residing independently at separate places.

07. A perusal of the entire record revea s that. after the marriage, respondent No.2 and accused No.1 lived together happily for some time. lt is an undisputed fact tlat the marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 is i:, love marriage, which was solemnized in the year 20'19. Significanfly, there are no specific or distinct allegations in the entirt:r charge sheet indicating the manner in which the petitioners-acc,rsed Nos.2 to 6 allegedly subjected respondent No.2 to physical or mental harassment. The charge sheet lacks any spercific details or descriptive particulars of incidents involving hari,rssment by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners-accused l\os.2 to 6 had interfered with the matrimonial life of the respondernt No.2 and the accused No.1. Such vague, generalised, and sweeping allegations, unsupported by concrete evidence rir particularised facts, cannot constitute a valid basis for criminal prosecution. 08 ln view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it apposite to refer to the decision of lhe Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others 5 y. Sfafe of Telangana and anotherl wherein at paragraph Nos.18, 24,25,28,29,31 & 32 itwas held that "!t. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appe ant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so. respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any pafticular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the atteged harassment occuned. Therefore, the FIR tacks concrete and precise allegations.

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 FtR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations .have been made against appeilant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. lt is atso an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appeltant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

25. A mere reference to the names of famity members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. tt is a welt_ recognised fact, borne out of judiciat expeience, that there is often a tendency to impticate all the members of the husband's family when domestic dlspules anse out of a matrimonial discord. Such generatised and sweeping accusations unsuppofted by concrete evidence or pafticulaised attegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercrse ' AtR 2o2s supReME couRT 173 6 caution in such cases to prevent misuse <.,f tegal provisions and the legal process and avoic! unnecessary harassment of innocent family me:mbers. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 hav: been living in different cities and have not residect in the mittrimonial house of appellant No.1 and resgtondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragg::d intct ciminal prosecution and the same would be ar; abuset of the process of the law in the absence of :;pecific: allegations made against each of them.

28. The inclusion of Seclion 49BA of the tpC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuing swift intervention by the State. Howrtver, in recent years, as there have been a notabte rise ir,, matrimonial dlsputes across the c:ountry, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequen y, the,re has: been a growing tendency to mrsuse provisicns like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unl()ashing personal vendetta against the husband and hi:; family by a wife. Making vague and generalised alleqations. during matimonial conflicts, if not scrutinize.d, witt lead to the mrsuse of legat processes end an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometlmes, recourse it: taken to invoke Secflon 498A of the tpc against the husband and his family in order to seek comoliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Couft has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband ttnd his family in the absence of a clear pima faci:t case against them. 29 We are not, for a moment, stating that any ,voman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what ha:; been contemplated under Section 49BA of the tpC should rernain silent and fotbear herself from mat<ing a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations ,5ut we sh<'tuld not encourage a case like as in the tr:resent I I 7 one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appe ant_ husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 4984 of the lpC is lodged by the latter. ln fact, the inseriion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matimonial home primarity due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes lt ls mlsused as in the present case.

31. Fufther, this Court in preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) I SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in deating 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.82 of 2022 fited by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settte personal scores and grudges against appettant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case al hand falts within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan La,l. Therefore, the High Couft, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers availabte to it under Seclion 482 CrPC and thereby, faited to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appe ants." 09. To substantiate the allegations levelled in the charge sheet, the Police have examined nine witnesses, out of whom five are the complainant and her family members, who are interested : witnessesi. Three others are caste elders, who are, stated to have conducted counseling sessions between the parties on two or three occasions. The remaining witness is tht-' lnvestigating Officer who conducted the investigation in the matter. l{owever, no independent witness has been examined by the Police to establish that respondent No.2 was subjected tc cruelty by the accused persons. '10 lVlaking vague and generalized alliigations in the context of matrimonial disputes, if not carefully scrutinized, may result in the misuse of the legal process and 'nay encourage coercive tactics by the wife and/or her fatnily members' Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Courts to examine whether a prima facie case exists against the husband and his family members before subjecting them to criminal prr:rsecution under the offence under Section 498-A of the lPC. ln the absence of clear and specific allegations, implicating the pet tioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 in criminal proceedings would amounl to an abuse of the process of law.

11. [n view of the facts and circumstanr:es of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decisions, th s Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of t re proceedings -_-<+u.r: 9 against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 amounts to an abuse of process of law, therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 are liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.301 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed I SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII To, '1 . Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor 2. The Station House O{1g91, errnoo, poii""-Station, Nizamabad District. 3. One CC to SRt. V ROH|TH noroirt" ioplIi'"' t 5. Two CD Copies Prosecutor, n,gi, il;r", the State or retangana at llo".?""0."1",,4tii0,,. SECTI N FFICER BGS/ABK t HIGH COURT DATED: 0210712025 I \1()( 'i..i,"}1* ^i\i'\ '. t I 16 SEP 2025 ORDER GRLP.No.3113 of 2023 )t t) -,'' l/ '-t2' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION g ,r'7' I q,/1 J / I I I t t I I I I i t I