Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Teiangana, wherein it is held that distant relatives could not be prosec

Petrtion under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Spl. S.C. No. 107/2024 pending on the file of the Vl Addl. Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge for SC & ST (POA), Secunderabad, pend ing disposal of Cnmrnal Petition No.4314/2025. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Arun Kumar Dodla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4314 of 2025 DATE:18.12.2025 BETWEEN: Hignau'ar Lalitha petitiont r/ zrcc:ust:d And State of Telangana, Represented through Public Prosccutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and another. Rcsp, rndcnt /t'omplainarr t ORDER This Criminal Petition is f-rled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in Spl.S.C.No.1O7 of 2024 on the file of the lcarned VI 2 SKS'J Crl.P.No.4314 of 2025 - Additional Sessions Judge -cum-Special Judge for SC/ STs (POA), Secunderabad, registered for the olfences punishablc under Sections 498-A, 506 and 323 of IPC and Section 3(t)(r)(s) of the SC/STs (POA) Amcndment Act, 2O15.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.2024, the de facto complainant krcigcd a rcport before the Police stating that since her marriage in 2016, her husband Durgesh had bcen harassing her mentally and physically, abusing her in the name of her caste, and assaulting her under the iniluence of alcohol. She further stated that he maintained an extra-marital relationship and continued to torture her despite counselling at Bharosa Centre. On

17.O1 .2024, he allegedly abused her publicly using caste- based derogatory u.ords and assaulted her, causing injuries to both ears, for which she received treatment at the ENT Hospital vide MLC No.4512024. Based on her complaint, a case was registered and a charge sheet was filed.

3. Heard Sri Mohd Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on -- 3 sKs,J Crl.P.No.4314 of 2O2S behalf of the respondent - State and Sri SK. Fakruddin Ali, learned counsel appearing on before of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was arrayed as accused No.2 and is the mother of accused No.1, had been lalsely implicated in the case without any specific allegations and that the complaint and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., even if taken at face value, did not disclose any role or overt act attributed to the petitioner to constitute offence s under Sections 498-A or 506 IPC, and the charge sheet was filed mechanically. He contended that only vague and omnibus allegations were made, and mere reference to being a family member could not justify prosecution. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Teiangana, wherein it is held that distant relatives could not be prosecuted without specific accusation and that general allegations must be nipped in the bud and that the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, as none of the witnesses had attributed any act of cruelty or criminal \-I 'a 4 SKS'J Crl-P-No.4314 of 2025 intimidation to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal pctirion.

5. On the other hand, learncd counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel for thc petitioner stating that the charge sheet and statements of n'itnesses clearly disclosed specific allegations against the pelitioner regarding harassment for additional dowry and threats r,r,ith dire consequences, attracting Sections 498-A and 506 tPC and that the petitioner was residing in the same household and had actively participated in the acts of cruelfy, and therefore could not escape liability by claiming to be merely the mother of accused No. 1. He contended that the investigation was properly conducted and not mechanical, and that prima facie material existed to proceed to trial, where the truthfulness of allegations would be tested. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 5 sxs,J crl,P.t{o.4314 of2O2s

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner is the mother of accused No.1 and the mother in-law of the de facto complainant. A careful examination of thc complaint, the earlier report given at the Bharosa Centre, and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., shows that no specilic or direct allegations wcre made against the petitioner at any point of time. The principal grievance of the de facto complainant, both in the present complaint and in her earlier representations, pertains exclusively to the conduct of accused No. 1, who is stated to be addicted to bad vices, assaulting her, and maintaining an extra-marital relationship.

7. It is also clear from the record that even during the earlier occasions when the de facto complainant approached the Bharosa Centre, no allegations were levelled against the petitioner regarding demand of additional dowry or harassment. In the 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the de facto complainant made only a vague reference that her husband and mother-in-law continued harassment, without .-r 6 sKs'J Crl.P-No.4314 of2025 attributing any particular overt act or specific incident to the peLitioner. L.W.2, who is the mediator of the marriage and also the doctor who treated the complainant, did not make any allegation against the petitioner. L.W.3, the mother of the de facto complainant, and L.W.4 have also not stated anything incriminating against the petitioner. Except for the general and omnibus refererrce in the statements of L.Ws. I and 6, there is no material on record indicating any act of cruelty, threat, or dowry demand attributable to the petitioner.

8. Thus, on a cumulative assessment of the complaint, earlier reports, and witness statements, this Court {inds that there are no specific, clear, or prima facie allegations to attract the offences allegecl against the petitioner. The accusations are primarily and substantialty directed against accused No. 1 alone. The continuation of proceedings against the petitioner, in thc absence of any specific role, would therefore amount to abuse of the process of law. Hence, this Court deems it ht to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4314 of2025 g. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No'2 in Spl.S.C.No. 107 of 2024 on the file of the learned Vl Additional Sessions Judge-cum-special Judge for SC / STs (POA), Secunderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall st and closecl. SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \.t_ I ,..--..-.....- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Addl. Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge for SC and ST (POA), Secunderabad.

2. The Statjon House Officer, Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRL MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN, Advocate IOPUC] 4 Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD Copies PK/PSL o HIGH COURT DATED:1811212025 CRLP.No.4314 ot 2O25 sHE1 t 1 3 [[B 202fi z * * PATCt ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. R"6