B. ln t)ara Laxminarayana v. State of Tetangana anotherl, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if

The State of Telangana, through P.S. Jammikunta, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature At Hyderabad. Gadipe lndra, Wo. Vijay Kumar Aged about 35 y-ears., Occ: Housewife R/o. Kandgarthi Village, Jammikunta Mandal Karimnagar District. ... RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitioh, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Proceedings against the petitioners/ A4 in C.C.No. 323 of 2015 On the file of Hon'bte ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurabad, registered under Sec.49B-A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners/ A-4 in C. C. No. 323 o'f 2015 On the file of Hon'ble ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurabad, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BASKULA ATHIK, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramatla, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for Respondent no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1! ./ THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETI N No.4461 of 2025 ORDER: This criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking to qr.rash the proceedings in CC No.323 of zO15 on the file of ll-Additional .Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, for the offences under sections 498-A lpC and Sections 3 and 4 of thr: Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'Dp Act').

2. Heerd Mr. Baskula Athik, learned counse! for the petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Notice is served on the respondent No.2, but she has failed to represent the matter.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is accused No.4 and happens to be the sister-in-law of the de facto complainant and that there are no specific allegations of harassment against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the de facto complainant and accused No.1 are happily living together and blesseci with a daughter, but still the case is kept pending and both of them are attending the proceedings. The learned counsel has further subnritted that the petitioner is facing a lot of troubte because \ \\ l : , I I n i I ! ! i I I Ii I i ! : I t t I , I !i i i t 1 ! i .. I 2 ETD,J .Crl.P. No.1161 ol2025 of this case and that her prospects of marriage are meager and she is not yet married due to this pending case. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutorhas submitted that the petitioner is unmarried and so she is residing with her parents. There is one incident mentioned in the complaint that all the family members have attempted to kill the de facto complainant by leaking the gas and when she made hues and cries, they reft her. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record

7. The contents of the compraint and the recitals of charge sheet reveal bald allegations against the petitioner. There is no specific averment with regard to the alleged harassment made by the petitioner to the de facto complainant. All the allegations are omnibus allegations stating that the accused No.1 and his family members used to harass her and that one day, in order to kill her they tried to leak the gas and when she made hues and cries, they ieft her. Thus, there is no specific averment or overt act against the petitioner herein. Admittedly, the petitioner is an unmarried lady. when there are no specific atlegations against the petitioner, there is no point in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner. bry/ J ETD,J Crt-P. No-U61 o12025 B. ln t)ara Laxminarayana v. State of Tetangana & anotherl, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if there are omnibus allegations against the petitioners and no specific incidents of harassment are made out, the proceedings need to be quashed. lt was held th:rt: "25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arisinr; out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well- recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic clisputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courls must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provi:;ions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. "

9. Irr the light of the above said decision and in vaew of the above helcl discussion, the criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings agrainst the petitioner-accused No.4 in CC No.323 of 2015 on tre file of ll-Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, are hereby quashed. Misceltaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand ctosed. t4oXf-1Nsc qi, \ To Sd/- C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER /TRUE COPY//

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad. i I i I i \

2. The Station House officer, Jammikunta Police station' Karimnagar District 3. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT] /

4. One CC to SRI' BASKULA ATHIK Advocate IOPUCJ 5. Two CD CoPies Tpk/pr t; r' !'n I I intr o r.1 3 'llq 7\7R .t U ?J Y * HIGH COURT \ \ ETDJ DATED:17,t1112025 ORDER CRLP.No.,I461 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION