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 stay all further proceedings in C.C. No. 12323 o{ 2019 on the file of the court of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, including appearance of petitioners before the trail court, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petitron This Petition cornrng on for hearing, upon perusing the trrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments o! SRI M RAM MOHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and SMT. S. MADHAV, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. l and SRl. D. SUDHARSHAN Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CRIMINAL PETITION tJ O: 3288 OF 2022 Between: I 2 Smt. Rondla Sadhana, Wo. Vittal Reddy Aged 71 years (8.6.1951), Occupation- Housewife R/o. FIat No. 302, Sai Murali Residency,'3rd Flooi, Christian Colony, Karimnagar. (A-2) Dr. Rondla Vittat Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy Aged 76 years (5.1.1947), occ- Retired civir Assistant surgeon, R/o. Flat N6 soz, sai Murali Resioency, 3rd Floor, Christran Colony. Karimnagar. (A-3) AND ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 2 & 3

1. The state of rerangana, represented by pubric prosecutor, High court of - Telangana at Hyderabad, Through Women p.S. Hyderabad C"ity. 2. Smt Rondla Saritha @ Neetima, Wio. Vikram Redjy, Aged 44 years, Occupation- Housewife, Now at H. No. 1Z_2923tN52, i_a, eaA'mala' Apartments, Santhosh Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memora,dum of Grounds of criminal-pelition, the Higr, court;;y oe nleased to quash the charge Sheet in c c No 12323 oi 2019 Jn tne Rie oi tne ,urt of the Xlll Addit,onar chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, in so far as petitioners, are concerned/A-2 and A-3. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 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;;y oe pleased to stay ail further proceedings in charge sheet in c.c. Nd. 12323 ot 2019 on the fite of the court of the Xilt Addition;l chief Metroporitan rvrigltraie at Nampally, Hyderabaci. incruding appearance of petitioners before the trair court, pending disposal of the above Criminat petition. This Petition .orning on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and -upon - the ,rgrr"nt of SRI M RAM MOHAN REDDY, AdVOCAIE fOr ihc PEtitiONEr ANd SMT. S. MADHAV, Assistant Public prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No. .r and SRl. D. SUDHARSHAN, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. hearing The Court made the foilowing: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMI NAL PE TION N 2 & 3288 of 2022 COMMON O RDER: These Criminal petitions are filed by the petitioners_ accused Nos.2 to 5 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C No.12323 of 2019 on the file of the learned Xill Additional Chief tVletropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners_ accused Nos.2 to 5 are under Sections 4gg_A, 406 of the lndian Penal Code (for short ,lpC') and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act,).

02. Heard Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 and Sri D.Sudharshan. learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 as well as Smt S.Madhavr, Iearned Assistant public prosecutor for the State-respondent No. 1. perused the record. 03 ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 19 06 2003. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 used to treat the respondent No.2 as a slave and with the 2 instigation of the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 5, accused No.1 used to harass her physically and mentally The respondent No.2 and her family members were made to believe that the accused No.1 was working in United States of America but he was studying in Toronto, Canada. She gave birth to a female child and the accused have demanded an amount of Rs 10,00,0001 as additional dowry. Later on, accused No.1 filed a divorce case against the respondent No.2 at Toronto, Canada Hence, the respondent No.2 filed I the present case for the offences under Sections 498-4, 406 of IPC and 3, 4 of the Act

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the father, the petitioner-accused No,4 is the sister of the accused No.1, the petitioner-accused No.5 is the husband of the petitioner-accused No.4. The accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 71 and 76 years. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are residing separately from the accused No.'l and respondent No.2. The petitioners never interfered in the matrimonial issues of 3 respondent No.2 and the accused No'1' The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No 2 or from her parents' There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5. The respondent No.2 had stated before the Court of the Child Welfare Committee, Karimnagar, that the accused No'1 never harassed her. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-4' 406 of IPC and 3' 4 of the Act' Hence, he sought for quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 5' 05 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting full-fledged trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss these Criminal Petitions'

06. As seen from the entire record, the respondent No.2 and accused No 1 after their marriage were living together along with the accused Nos'2 and 3 at Karimnagar' Whereas, the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5, who are wife and husband i e. sister and brother-in-law of the accused No 1 are residents of Warangal District' Therefore, it is clear 4 that the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No.2 There are no specific allegations in the entire charge sheet as to in what manner the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 have harassed the respondent No.2

07. All the allegations are made against the accused No.1. lt is an admitted fact that the accused No.1 filed divorce case against the respondent No.2. The present calendar case has been filed by the respondent No.2 after the divorce case filed by the accused No.1. There are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 5. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution.

08. lt is relevant to note that after filing of the present case, the respondent No.2 has appeared before the learned Court of the Child Welfare Commiftee, Karimnagar (Bench of Magistrate) on '13.03.2018 and stated that she do not know about any case and she had simply signed some papers. Further, she clearly stated that the accused No. 1 never harassed her for any dowry or for any other reasons. lt is also stated that she has 5 I / been suffering from some mental ill-health and taking treatment at Hyderabad. Ultimately, the Three Member Committee Gtme to a conclusion that the respondent No.2's mental condition is not of a reasonable person and suffering from mental aliment.

09. ln Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anotherl wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph Nos.25 and 31 held "2!. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud lt is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic dlsputes an'se out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsuppofted by concrete evidence or partrcularised allegations cannot form the basrs for criminal prosecution. Coufts must exercise caution in such cases fo prevent mlsuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the present case, appeltant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the t 2024 tNSC 953 6 family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matimonial house of appeilant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into ciminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. Stale of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 hetd that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matimonial cases. The altegations oi harassment by the husbands c/ose relatives who had been living in different cities and never visitecl or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirety different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care ancl circumspection."

10. 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. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the /. 7 I husband and his family members' The petitioners-accused Nos'2 and 3 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the respondent No'2' who are aged about 71 and 76 years, respectively' There are no descriptive particulars of harassment caused by them The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are sister-in-law and her husband who are living separately and have not resided in the matrimonial house of the accused No' 1 and respondent No'2' Moreover,therearenoallegationsofcriminalbreachoftrust attracting the offence under Section 406 of lPC. Hence' they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them'

11. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decision' this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 5 amounts to sheer abuse of process of law, therefore' the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 5 are liable to be quashed 8

12. Accordingly, these Criminal petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.12323 of 2019 pending on the fite of the learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any' shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// sd/- p. cH'. NAGABHUSHAMBA D PTJTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, WPS, CCS, DD Police Station, Hyderabad City. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4 2 CCs to SRl. M RAM MOHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. 2 CCs to SRl. D. SUDHARSHAN, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies. Hyderabad (OUT) PI\4/gh R+ HIGH COURT iATED:01 1041,2025 ( \)\l TlrE .5, o; L) 12unry o t' x A r'l.Tcl lrr0 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.2548 & 3288 of 2022 OWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS n. vA- 2) (' ALL I