The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 ol 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 including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C. No. 217 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble lll Additional Junior Civit Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Athivelli, Medchal Malkajgiri District. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitio n ers-a ccu sed Nos.2 & 3 Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional i(ffi*. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and None appeared for the respondent no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5399 ot 2024 ORDER Thrs Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners- accused Nos 2 and 3 seeking to quash the; proceedings against them in C C No 217 of 2022 on th:) file of lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional lVletropolitan I/lagrstrate at Athivelli, ttledchal lValkalgrri t-,istrict The offences alleged agarnst the petitioners are r.rrder section 498 A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohrbrtion Act (for I short The Act ) 2 Heard lVl/s Tanushree Bose. learnel counsel for the petrtioners-accused Nos 2 and 3 and Sri l\l Ramachancira Reddy learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record 3 ln brief the case of the prosecL.rt on is that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are lVlother rn law and Fa:h=r in law of the respondent No 2 The marriage of the resporrdent No 2 with the son of the petitioners was perforrned on lg 112O2O by givrng dowry of Rs 33.00 000/- cash, 25 tulas o1 gold, 2 kg 2 I srlver and household articles and spending Rs 20,00 000/- for marriage After marrrage only for 3 days she was looked after well by her husband and later her husband started neglecting her and after 10 days of their marriage, her husband left to Canada for his job, by assuring that he will do V ISA process to get her there After reaching Canada her husband started to abuse her in filthy language over phone for various reasons and to get done surgery for extra right foot bone with her parents expenditure, then only he will take her to Canada Sister in law of respondent No.2 who resides at USA also harassed her by rnvolvrng in her personal life and demanded Rs 2,00,0001, 50 grams gold from the complainant. Accused Nos.2 and 3 who are mother in law and father in law also harassed her. regardrng transfer of propefty which are under her father's name, they took all gold and household articles and clothes of complainant and threatened her and her father for extra dowry Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section 498 A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 3 4 Learned counsel for the petitroners submrts that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners- accused Nos 2 and 3 who are the tt/other in a,ry and Father in law of the respondent No 2. Only omniLrus and vague allegations are made against the petitionr:r s being the parents of the accused No 1 and roped them in a false case It is further submitted that a bare perusal of ilre complaint and the charge sheet would entail that mentally or physically harassing the 2nd respondent does not arise as they did not resrde under the same roof for a consideraL,lt, period He further submrtted that the marriage of the respondent No 2 was performed on 18.11 2020 and the accuserl No 1 who is son of the petitioners left to Canada on 02 12 2O2O Thereafter immedrately the 2nd respondent m,t,,ed back to her parents house and she hardly stayed for a period of g days in the matrimonlal house, which is established even from her '1 61 Cr P C statement The allegatiorr as per the complaint is that there was demand of dowry an,l there are no specific allegations with regard to dowry anJ they never resided with their son and defacto complainant a. any other 4 5 While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petrtroners, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decisron in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anotherl wherein the Honourable Supreme,Court of lndia held as lnder

25. A mere reference to the names of family mentbers in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicattng their active involvement should be ntpped 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 disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsuppofted by con)rete evidence or parlicularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases lo prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members ln the present case, appellant Nos 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No 2 herein. Hence, they can,not be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 5 of specific allegations made against eac:h of 28 The inclusiort of Section 498A of the lFr) fiy way of an amendment was intended tct :urb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her hus'ltand and his family ensuring swift intervention b1,'the State. However. in recent years, as there lrave been a notable rise in matrimonial drs;p',ttes across the country, accompanied by grotving discord and tension within the institutic,r of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency [o nrisuse provision:; like Secflon 498A of the IPC as a toc)l for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife A/laking vtrgue and generalised allegations during matrint<:nial conflicts, if nol scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting t,rr. fics by a nrife arrd/or her family Sornelrnres, recourse is takett to invoke Section 498A ol the IPC against the ltusband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasorti,ble demands of a wife Consequently, this )ourl has, tinte and agatn. cautioned og,a;nst prosecutrng the husband and his family rn the absence of a clear pnma facie case oQ'atnst them. 31 Further. this Court in Preeti Gupta vs ,S,late of Jharkharrd (2010) 7 SCC 667 held thitt the courts have to be extrentely careful and cautious in dealing with lhese contplaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration wtrile dealing with ntaLrintonral cases The allegati':)ns of harassntertt by the lrusband's close relati,,es 6 - 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 contplainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and ctrcumspection. 32 We therefore. are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No 82 of 2022 filed by respondent No 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No 1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case af hand falls within category (7) of illustrative paranteters highlighted in Bhalan Lal. Therefore, the High Courl. in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Seclron 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of tlte Court's process by contihuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants " 6 Learned counsel for the respondent No 2 submits that there are triable issues and there-are specific allegations against the petitroners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition 7 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition - 1 8 A perusal of the record disclost:s that the petrtioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the lVlotlre' in law and Father in law of the respondent No.2 lt is adnritted fact that the respondent No2 resided in her in laws horr,-,e only for a period of 8 days and as such there is no question of harassrng the respondent No 2 Further. being well educated person the 2"d respondent could have filed a oomplaint if there was demand of dowry rmmediately withor- t watting for a period of 8 months which renrained as unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. Further a divorce petitiln was filed by the husband of respondent No.2 and a rr:stitution of conjugal rights as counter claim was filed by the respondent No 2 whrch are pending before Famrly Cor- r:, lVledchal- lVlalkajgiri ln view of the same there aTe no specific allegations against these petitioners Only r'?gUa and omnibus allegatrons are made against the petittrtrers and no material was placed by th'e prosecution with regard to specific instances and being parents of hr-'t husband, respondent No.2 roped them tn this case and there are no specific overt acts established agatnst the petitror,::rs. -- 8 I r- Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific details or descriptive particulars of tnstances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution 'l 0 IVaking vague and generalrsed allegations durtng matrimonial confltcts. 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 49BA 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 facte case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members Hence, the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be dragged into crtmtnal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 9 11 ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laicl rJown by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the aL>ove decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that th: continuation of the proceedings against the petrtioners-a:r'used Nos 2 and 3 amounts to abuse of, process of law tl-erefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quasrr,:d 12 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition Ls allowed and the proceedrngs against the petitioners-accusel Nos 2 and 3 in C C No 217 of 2022 on the file of lll Additiorra Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional tVletropolitan [Vlagistrate: at Athivelli, tVledchal tVlalkajgiri District, are hereby quashecl As a sequel, pending miscellaneous aplllications, if any, shall stand closed II EKHAR RAO REGISTRAR sd/-NAyANr "f#B[frt ,\ lo\ 1 ,/TRUE COPY// sdcrron oFFlcER \l To, "i 1 The lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metrtrpolitan Magistrate' ' itiu"irl, Medchal Malkajgiri District ^ . z ii."'dtlli"L House officer P S Alwal Cybera0ao ; cj;";ci; SriT Anirudh Reddv Advocate tolult 4 Two ccs to the pruri" ifo.JJu"tli, nigi-', c"r;1 for thL Stat" of Telangana' 5. Two CD Copies HYderabad. [OUTI GH/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:13/08t202s ORDER CRLP.No.5399 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION. . _ _.5- , ,.r Ii -t .\ :l :r siP ztfi