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 arr further proceedings incruding the appeaiance of the petitioner in c.c,No.2905 of 2o24 on the file of xlil Adaitionat Cnier Metropotitan Magistrate, (Mahila Cou,t), Nampatty, Hyderabad, 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. T. PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY, rearned senior counser, for sri r s ANTRUDH REDDY, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri_ M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri GOVARDHAN REDDY JOUNDLA Advocate (nc,ne appeared) for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI TION No. 4808 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 ol Cr'P'C' by the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.2905 ol 2024 on the file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief Metro;;olitan trlagistrate (Mahila court) at Nampally' Hyderabad' registered for the offences under Sections 498-4 and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act' 1961 '

2. Heard lVlr. T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy' learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and tVIr' t\4 Ramachandra Reddy' learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No 1-State' There is no representation for respondent No 2-de faoto complainant' Perused the record

3. The petitioner, arrayed as accused No'4' is the married sister of accused No.1. As per the averments rnade in the complaint' the specific allegation against the petitioner is that she along with other accused demanded certain gifts from the victiirt at the time of marriage' The petitioner along with other accused also demanded for additional dowry when such demands were not met' The and threatened the victtm ) ) 2 petitioner instigated accrlsed No. 1 in harassing the victim and acting upon such instigation, accused No.1 kicked the victim. 4.s ubmi sstonsoflearnedSen Cou nsel for the oetitioners:

4.1. The pefitioner is innocent and has been falrsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between victim and accuse. Ilo..l. Accused No.1 filed Domestic Violence Case in the Court at USA in October, 2023. A counter case of domestic violence was fired by the v'ctim. By order dated 27'11'2023' the court at USA found no merits in the r:raim or a,egatrons of victim and granted permanent Domestic Viorence Restraining order in favour of accused No.1 and it attained finality on OS.A1 .2024 4'2' The marriage of petitioner took prace on 19 0(i.2003. since then, she is residing at UsA arong with her husband. rhe petitioner came to lndia on 17 O2.2O1S only to attend the marriage of acc;used No.1 and the victim and she returned to USA on 09.03.2015. Tl-e petitioner never resided under the same roof of accused No. 1 and the victim. rt is areged in the compraint that the petitioner demanded gifts, but no specific date and time was mentioned. ln the D.V.C filed by trr: victirn against accused No 1 there are no allegations against the petitioner. Apart from the family members of victim, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution' The present complaint was rodged by the de facto 1 i tF *r 3 complainant in2023, whereas, the marriage of victim with accused No.1 was performed in 2015. The reason for such delay remained unexplained. lt is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner.

4.3. ln support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others y. Stafe of Bihar and othersl , Geeta Mehrotra and another v. Sfafe of uttar Pradesh2 and Preeti Gupta and another v. Stafe of Jharkhand and anothef, wherein, it is held that if the allegations made against the family of members of husband were general and omnibus, which, if found to be vague and unsubstantiated, would be Iiable to be quashed.

4.4. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioner herein, has harassed the victim after her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. lt is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a ' lzozz; o scc seo 'lzorzy ro scc z+t ' 1zo ro; z scc ooz 4 fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accor(Jingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A o., lpC is extracted hereunder: 498A. Husband or relative of husband oi a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the retative of the h,tsbancl of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pL,ntshed wih imprisonment for a tem which may extend to three' rcars and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-(a)any wilfut conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suiiide or lo cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; o(!)harassment ot le woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlavtful demend for any property or valuable security or is on account of failu"e by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

7. ln the judgment of Sfafe of Haryana and others u.. CH.Bhajan Lat and othersa, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: The following categories of cases can be stateo L)y way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under A.tiite 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Cou,l either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the encs of justice. though it may not be possrb/e to lay down any pre.i:;e, clealy defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guiCelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myr'ad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First lol'ormation Report or the complaint, even if theyaie faken at il.heir face value and accepted in their entirety do not p,rima facie ' teez scc ic.i14t o_. i t I I I 5 constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the Ftst lnformation Repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 1SS(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontrovefted altegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in supporl of the same do not disclose the commission ol any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FtR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a potice officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 1SS(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FtR or compiaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express tegal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the instiution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifes y attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

8. ln the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anothef , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.18, 25, 31 and 32 held that: '18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the a egations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Othir than claiming thai appe ant No.1 harassed her and that appe ant t 2oza INsc g 3i ) 6 Nos.2 fo 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.1Z has not provided any speciiic details or descnbeo aity padicular instance of harassment. She has also not mention('d the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged ,lorassfllenf occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete aryl precise allegations.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial disptttt, 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 tfitplicale all the members of the husband's family when domestic dlsputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsuppofted by concrete <tvidence or pafticularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Coufts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent niisuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family netmbers. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the nembers of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in dilferent cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 ancl respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they <:annot be ,:nta criminal prosecution and the same v,auld be an dragE€d abuse of lhe process of the law in the absence of specific allcgatrcns ntade against each of them.

31. Further, this Coutt in Preeti Gupta vs. Slate or ,lharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 held that the coufts have to be extremely careful attd cautiaus in dealing with these complaints and must take oragmatic realties into consideration while dealing wilh matrimonial cases- Ihe allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in dirferent cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the compiainant ,?sde,C ',',ould have an enttely dif{erent complexion. The allegations of the complainant are' required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the imougned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and gruclges against appeltant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhaian La'. Therefore, the iligh Couft, in the present case, ened in nat oercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby faited to prevont abuse of the Courf's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants." 7

9. ln numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases held that 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. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-4 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable 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.

10. ln the present case, adrnittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the victim and accused No.1 . As stated in the complaint, the marriage between the victim and accused No.1 was solemnized on 01 .03.2015. However, the present complaint was lodged by the de facfo complainant on 08.12.2023 i.e., after more than eight years. When it is alleged in the complaint that since the date of marriage, the accused harassed the victim and her parents, there is no plausible explanation for the delay caused in lodging the complaint. lf really there was harassment as alleged, the de facto complainant or victim would not have remained silent for such a long period and would have complained much earlier B

11. The de faclo complainant has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry meted out by the petitioner either in lndia or USA, except stating that she demanded gifts, additional dowry and instigated accused No.1 in harassing the victim. lt is evident from the record thart the petitioner is living separately from accused No.1 and victim. '12. Apart from the above, it is pertinent to note that the complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the mother of the victim, who * l.does not personal knowledge of the alleged incidents rvhich took place between accused No.1 and the victim, as she is not il direct witness to the alleged acts. Any statement or testimony given by the de facfo complainant, in the absence of personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, would amount to hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible in law and cannot be relied upon as the basis for initiating crirninal prosecution.

13. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgmerrts, the petitioner- accused No.4 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial especially when there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment for or in relation to demand of dowry against her I

14. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 in C C.No.2905 of 2020 on the file of the learned Xlll Additional chief Metropolitan lvlagistrate (Mahila Court) at Nampally, Hyderabad. i I llI I I I I I I l i a To, Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER 1' The Xur th Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate at Nampafly, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, WpS police Station, West Zone, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRt. T S ANTRUDH REDDy Advocate [OpUC] 4. One CC to Sri GOVARDHAN REDDY JOUNDLA ,Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to the pUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT]. 6. Two CD Copies ARM/ABK YA- HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 ORDER CRLP.No.4808 of 2024 :=--:: i.4 \*I, \\ i,.1 I + o ,-., 15 ii! ?t]fr I C, -.+ '1 "..,':'i' ALLOWTNG THE CRLP qrtt" \i- -- d.Ia'