The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including Arrest of the Petitioner/A-4 in FIR No.223 of 2021 on the file of Polic<.' Station, Alwal, Cyberabad District, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusing the [\,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of l\ilr.Akkam Eshwar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri lr4r.K.Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER .T[IE HONOURABI-E SRI JUS'TTCE J. SREEI IVAS ITAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3448 OI,'2 12l ORDER: This Crimirral Pctition has bcen filed bv the retitic. ner/accused No.4, seeking to (luash the procccdings in Crimc No..l. I of 202l on the file ol thc Alwal l)olice Station, Cyberabad, for the c,f cnces punishable under Sections 49E-A ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (tc'short'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 ol'thc Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for shurt 'DP Act').

2. The casc ol prosccr-rtion in brief is that 05.04.2 )21, the dc-facto complainant loogcd a cornplaint stating that on 22.09.2 ) I t h,:r marriage was solemnizcd rvitli Santosh Reddy in the presence of e ders. At thc timc of marriage, her parents gavc Rs.6,00,000/- in cash,6 tu as of gold, 3 kgs of silver, and 2..1 acres of land as dowry. After the marri rge. her husband treated her well fbr about one rnonth. Thereafter, he be ame raddicted to alcohol and starte(l harassing hcr both mentally anrl physically. The complainant was blcssed rvith a daughter, aged 8 month: By liearing the words of her mother-in-larv, fathcr-in-law, and sister-in-t rw, h(Jr husband used to quarrel rvith her and harass her to bring additic r rl dou,ry. While she u'as 8 months pregnant, lier husband lorced her to d'r rk 'All Out'and attentpted to kill her and her daughter. Later, for her delir ery,. slie went to her parents' hotrse. ()n 25.0-1.202 I at about I l:30 a.m.. r, r husband camc 2 to her mother's house, abused hcr, and beat her on her hands and legs Hence, this complaint was lodged.

3. lleard Mr.Nandan Sharma, Ieamed counsel, representing Mr.Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor lor respondent No.l and Mr.K.Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel lor respondent No.2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not corrmitted any olfence and has been falsely implicated in the above crimc, rnerely on the ground that she is the sister of accuscd No. l. He lurthcr submitted that thc petitioner never harassed respondent No.2lde- .facto cotnplainant fbr additional dowry, nor there are any specific allegations made against hcr. He further submitted that the petitioner has becrr residing in the USA, and at no point of time lhe dc-factct complainant or accused No. I never lived along with the petitioner. Hence, the ingredicnts o{'thc allcged offences are not attracted against the petitioner He also subnritted that respondent No.2 has made all the allcgations only against accused No.l, and with an intention to harass the petitioner, has lalsely implicated her by making omnibus allegations. 'lherefore, the continuation of proceedings in Crirne No.223 ol 2021 is a clear abuse of' the process ol larv

5. Per contr,t, lcamed counscl tbr rcspondcnt No.. subrnitted that there are specilic allegations levelled against the p: itioner that the petitioncr, along uith thc othcr accused, harassed resp: rdent No.2 both physically and urentally, and the ingredients of the all:r ed oflenccs are attracted against the petitioncr. He further submitted thi:t the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment o[' the proceedings in ('imc No.223 of 2021, on the grounds which are plcaded in the present c.iminal petition Whether the petitioner has curnrnitted the alleged offent:e : or not witl be revealed during tl-re coursc ol'inr"estigation. Hence, the p:r ition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered thc rir al subrnissions madc lrr thc respective parties and after perr,rsal of the materiaI available on reccr, l. it reveals that the marriage of respondent No.l rvas pertbrmed rvith ,tt cused No. I on

22.02.2019, and thercalier, rratrimonial disputes arose bct.\'een them. The petitioner is none other than the sister of accused No. l. I h : rccord further discloses that the petitioner is residing with her family r the [JSA. The major allegations havc been levellcd against accused No. . and there are no specific allegations against thc petitioner. ['hc only allr galion levclled against the petitioner is that she altegedly abused respond rnt Nrt.2 along with thc other accuscd r- .+

7. Thc spccific case of the petitioner is that accused No. I and respondent No.2 arc living separately, and the petitioner has never resided with thcm at an1' point ol'time

8. It is pcrtincnt to mention that the law governing the excrcise of inherent powcrs undcr Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articlc 226 is well settled by the decision in State of Hury-ana v. Bhajan Zalr, whercin the Hon'ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued catcgories ol cascs warranting quashment, such as when the allegations takcn at lace value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, arc actuated by malafides, or where continuance oi proceedings would arnount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends ofjustice.

9. ln Muppidi Lakshmi Naral'ana Reddy and others v. Snrc of Andhra Pratlesh and tnolher), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier decisions in Geetu Mehrolra ond another v. State of Uttar Pratlesh anr! anolherj and Doro Lakshmi Narayana tnd others v. Sture of Telangana ontl onolhera. reiteratcd the principle that mere omnibus and general allegations against the relatives of the husband, particular!' SCC Onlinc SC 881 'rgqlsupp(l)Sac.l.i5 I2025 ' (20 t2) lo scc ;t t r (201.1) ll SCR -i)q those residing separately or abroad, are insuf Ilcient to ill |act prosccution under Section 498-z\ of the IPC or the provision of the [-'l Act. [t was held that in the absencc of specitic and distinct allegatiols indicating their active participation in the altcged acts of cruelty or do'r v dcn-rand, their implication amounts to an abuse of process of' larv.

10. In the present casc, the allegations rnade against t 1( petitioner, who is the sister olaccused No. l. are vague and lack specifrc ry. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has bectt rcsiding in tlrt USA. In such circurnstances, continuation of the crintinal proceedir gs al3ainst the petitioner u'ould be nothing but an abtrsc of the procesr; rf lau' and falls squarely within the parameters laid dorvn by the Hon'h c Suprcme Court in Bhajan Lul's case supra.

11. In the light o1'the principles laid dorvn b1' the Ho r ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, this Court is of the conside cd opinion that continuance of proceedings against the pctitioncr lbr thc oflcnces under Section 498-,4 o1'the IPC and Sections i and 4 ol thc ).P. Act would amount to abuse of process of law

12. The inherent powers ol'the Courr undcr Section I i. o1'the Cr.P.C rnay be exercised to prejvent abuse of the process of thc ( ,rut't. Whetl thc allegations made in thc complaint prcsented b1 rcsporr,l, rt No.f to the 6 police do not constitute any prima /acie case for the offences under Section 498-4 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act asainst the petitioner, for the tbregoing reasons, this Court can exercise its power, in the light ol judgrnent ol'thc I{on'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal's case (supra I)

13. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against thc petitioner/accused No.4

14. In the result, the Clriminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 lor the offences under Section 498-4 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 ol-the D.P. Act in Crime No.223 of 202l, on the file ofthe Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFICER i/TRUE COPY// To, l.TheXXlllMletropolitanl\4agrstrateattvledchalCourt'Cyberabad'lVedchal District.

2. The Station House Officer' Alwal Policr: Station, Cyberabad' e. t*o CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Courl for the state of Telangana' at. Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Sri K.Narsimha Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies SVS/kan't Vtr H]GH COURT DATED:3011012025 _.,:, _, .14.') \{l)l ?tli n,i ,..: ' :.. ,. _r 'i:,.: -.:. !.i: ORDER CRLP.No.3448 of 2021 ALLOWING THE CRLP A ."{A Y-\- - 6'{f