Fufther, this Courl in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

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 charge sheet in C.C.No.'191 of 2022, on the frle of the 1't Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nizamabad, against the Petitioners and l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Between:

1. Kavidi lndhumathi, Wo. Kavidi Shailesh, Aged about 45 Years. Occ. Housewife,/ R/o. H.No.6-1-212, New Bank Colony, Near MSR School, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No. 2 AND ,1 2 3 Kavidi Chandrakala, Wo. Late Kavidi Raiender, Aged about 73 Years, Occ. Housewife. Jagga Prasanna Lakshmi, Wo. Jagga Jagadeshwar, Aged about 53 Years, Occ . Air lndia Office Manager. Jagga Jagadeshwar, S/o.Late Jagga Muthyala Rao, Aged about 59 Years, Occ. Senior AGM, BHEL. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 are FUo. H.No.8-7-25l1, Punch Kutir ,R.R. Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

4. Thogaru Vandhana, Wo. Thogaru Srinivas, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Air lndia Manager, R/o. Flat No.692, Pocket E, Mayur Vihar, Phase 2, New Delhi - 1 10 09'1 Respondents /petitioners

5. The State of Telangana. through lnspector of Police, Women Police Station, N iza m bad' Rep bv P u b I ic P rosecut"''':'.fl.*SieiBl"tr.r"orr.orNANrs Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in Crl.P.No.2595 of 2022 dt.22l3l2022 and consequently dismiss the criminal petition, in the interest of justice 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 may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners (A-2 to A-5) in C C No 191 of 2022, on the file of the 1st Addl. Judicial First Class Magrstrate, at Nizamabad, including the docket order dated 0810212022, in the interest of luslice and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Sri Harsha Reddy, Advocate for the Petitroners and Smt. S. Madhavi, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2595 ot 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition rs filed by the petiiloners_accused Nos 2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C C.No 191 ot 2022 on the fite of I Additional Judiciat First Class Magistrate, at Nizamabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 49g-A of the lndran Penal Code (for short 'lpC') and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibrtion Act (for short 'the Act,). 02 Heard Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.tMadhavi learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State. 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 in the year 2021 . After 10 days of her marriage they terminated the rnaid in the house, due to which respondent No.2 used to clean the house aM cook the food. 2 Accused No.1 along with other family members harassed her physically and mentally and also to get additional dowry. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-4 of IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition 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. lt is submitted that the petitioners did not demand respondent No.2 for additional dowry During the course of investigation on the basrs of investigation. prosecution had dropped the case against A3 to A5 but the trial Court without considering the same had rssued summons to all the accused including 43 to A5, by docket order dated OB022O2O lt is submitted that the husband of the 1'r petitroner died on 11.03.2010' accused No l was sent by his father to Austria and during his stay all the expenses were borne by his father for 15 years and after death of hrs father he returned to lndia. Thereafter 1'' petittoner performed his marriage with respondent No 2 and permrtted them to live in Flat at Bowenpally, whrch was one of the property of the husband of 3 1'r petitioner and 1't petitioner used to live in another house at Begumpet. Since the time of marriage accused No.1 and respondent No 2 used to harass 1"t petitioner for partition of the properties hold by the husband of lstpetitioner. As such differences arose between them, out of which she filed a complaint against them, only due to which the respondent No.2 filed the present case. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the sister of the accused No 'l , the petitioner-accused No 4 is husband of sister of the accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.5 is another sister of accused No 1 and they are residing separately from the petrtioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 5 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of 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 contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredtents to attract the offences under Sections 498-4 of IPC and section 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 5. learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. 4 State of Telangana and another'wheretn the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph Nos.18' 25 and 31 held "!!. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the Jllegations made by respondent No.2 are vague )*i-o^niOu" Other than ctaiming that appellant "ii.l nuriu"a her and that appettant Nos 2 to 6. in-s;tigatea him to do so responden t No 2 has not '"rniia"a any speclic details or described any "i,liiu,r, instance of harassment She has also mentioned the ttme' date place' or manner tn 'nott the alleged harassment ?""u"1! *i,|5 'inir"fon, the FtR lacks concrete and precrse allegations ,"r" reference to the names of family li"i t-iro"l" in a crtmtnal case artstng ottt of a ' ,r,rr,*"i,a dispute witltotrl specif tc allegatnns iindicating their actue involvement should be "r;p;;; ; the bttd tt ts a wett-recognised fact' bn)ne out of 1uc)ictal experience thal there is often Z- ,l"ia"r", to tmplrcate all the nernbers of the t r"Orra'.- family when donrestrc drsputes anse it " matrtmonial drscorcj Sttch generalised "r, and sweeping acct/sat/ons ttnsttpported by concrete evidence or parlict ariscd allegati,ons cannot form fhe lras/s for crtnurtal prosecution' Courfs nlust exerctse catttiort in strch cases to n t m is use o f I e g a t p r o v t s r o r ", 1'.! ^' -: ^' :,9 :',, i r"u process and avotc! r//lnecessary /)aras'sme'rl ur " "innor"nt famtty members' ln the present case' "r,pl"iu,nt Nos 2 to 6 who are the rt'tembers of the ilil,,i of appettant No 1 have been tiving in iii,ii"u"r, citiies ancl ltave rtot resrded in the matrimonial hot/se of appt:llant No 7 and re,spondent No 2 herein Hertce they cannot be ' ntR 2ozs suPREn,,tE couRl 1ll 5 dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the hw in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 31. Fufther, this Courl in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the coutts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realtrcs into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husbands c/ose 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 "

05. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petitron 06 Learned Assrstant Public Prosecutor for the State also prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 07 A bare perusal of the record discloses that there are civil drsputes between the famrly members, wherein a case vide O S No 40 of 2021 is pending between them However, with regard to the case on hand, it is evident from 5 the complaint and charge sheet that after marriage of the accused No.1 and respondent No.2 they resided separately and the petitioners herein never lived with them at any instance and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 were living separately from the accused No.'1 and respondent No.2 Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 5 were residing separately from the accused No 'l and respondent No.2. 08 Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, 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 accusatrons unsupported by concrete evidence or particularrsed allegattons cannot forn.t basis for criminal prosecution.

09. Making vague and generalised allegatrons during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the mrsuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 4984 of the lpC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable / 7 demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 I cannot be dragged into criminal proseculion and the same would ( ( , I be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

10. 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 agarnst the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 5 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 5 are liable to be quashed

11. Accordingty, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petrtioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.191 of 2O2Z on the fite of I Additronat Judicial First Class [Iagistrate, at Nizamabad, are hereby quashed, 8 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. B.G.VYJAYANTHl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1 . The 1sr Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nizamabad, 2. The Station House Officer, Women police Station, Nizamabad. 3 One CC to Sri p. Sri Harsha Reddy , Advocate [OpUC] 4 One CC to Sri C.Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OpUC.] t ],t iS;l"r.i[t?i PRosEcuroR, High courr ror the srare or rerangana 6 Two CD copies. u.t t_B/t,sL HIGH COURT DATEO:2110412025 ORDER CRLP.No.2595 ol 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION k oB THE S ,-4 o^ o t) 1 E jlJl.l 2025 ,l ."t r rsP,lrcl r -.1* t / I ,fr