Hon'ble Supreme Court irr Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana vs Pardiwala, j.), the legal principle applicable

2. D.Archana, aged about 28 years, Wo.Late D.Yada R/o.H.No.2-2-647 l235l9lNB, Srinivasa Colony, Street Amberpet, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT giri, Private employee, No.12, Pocham Basthi, ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the quash petition and quash that would be urged at the time of final hearing in C C.No.462212022 on the file of the Court of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad as far as the petitioner is concerned. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 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.462212022 on the file Xlll Additional Chief t\iletropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad pending quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri I\/ N NARASITMHA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. M VIVEKANANDA REDDY, Assistant 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 K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O47 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.4622 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, i86O (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP ActJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police against the petitioner ancl other accused. She stated that she got married to accused No. 1 / D. Yadagiri on 27 .O5.2O11 in an arranged marriage. After the marriage, her husband initially appeared kind, but soon his true nature emerged. They have two children together. Her mother-in-law constantly taunts her and complains to her husband about her household work, which leads to physical abuse by her husband. Her in-laws, 2 SKS,J Ctl.P.No.6047 of 2025 - including her mother-in-la.,rr, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law, harass her for dowry and instigate her husbancl against hcr. They also defame hcr in front of relatives ancl friends by sharing her personal mafters. Her husband has pl-rysically abused her, including atternpting [o strangle her and throwing her down the stairs. He dor:s not take care of thcir children or pay their school fees. They further harass her for not working or for not giving them enough money when shc does work. Despite severai panchayatr; (mediations) attempring to mend the relationship, the abuse continues.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police rt:gistered a case in Crime No.626 of 2O2l for the offences ltunishable under Sections 498-A and l;06 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, and after completio n of investigation, thel' filed charge sheet, uide C.C.No.4622 of 2022, before the lc.rrned XilI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

4. Heard Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, Iearnerl counsel appearing on behalf Sri M. Vivekananda ol the petitioner as well as Reddy, learned Assistant Public 3 sKs,J Crl.P.No.6047 of 2025 Prosecutor appearing on behalf ol respondent No.l-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was wrongly implicated in the said case and the allegations leveled against her, pima facie, do not constitute any offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that the petitioner never interfered in the matrimonial disputes between accused No. 1 and respondent No.2. Police hled the charge sheet without verifying the matter and there are no specific allegations against the petitioner except stating that she supported accused No.l. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint itself shows that there are allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner is the mother of accused No.t harassed respondent No.2. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner require trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 4 SKS,J Crl-P.No.6047 ol2O25 - 7 . In the light of th e submissions made by both the Iearned counsel and a prerusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is the mother of accused No.l and the allegationr; leveled against her are that she harassed respondent No.!) and demanded additional dowry. It is specifically contendecl by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not residing with accused No. 1 and respondent No.2 and further contended that except supporting accused No.1, she never interfered with the matrimonial disputes betrveen them.

8. At this stage, it is irnperative to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court irr Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another 1 , wherein in paragraph No.35, it is held as under: "35. In one o[ the recent pronouncements of this Court irr Mahmood Ali and Ors vs State of Uttar F'radesh ald Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 950, authored by one of us (J.ts. Pardiwala, j.), the legal principle applicable apropos Sectiort 482 of the Cr.P.C rvas examined. Thr:rein, it was observed that when an accu..ied comes before the High lcriminal Appeal No. 2379 ol2024 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5047 of 2025 Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.c or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a littie more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FlR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.' 9 . As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta (cited supra), the averments in the complaint has to disclose the alleged ingredients of the offences. In the present case, except omnibus allegations, there are no other specilic allegations against the petitioner, who is the mother of accused No. 1. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preeti 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6047 of 2025 - Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand2, has observed that the family members, who are residirrg away from accused No'1, cannot be roped into the case. .in the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are that she instigated accused No'1 to demand additional dowry and also harassed her physically and mentally. Except ttrese bald allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. In vieu' thereof, as the petitioner is not residing along with accused No' 1, the allegations against her art: considered to be vague Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose wculd be served and that since there are no other specific allt:gations against the petitioner, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed' Further, the prosecution is directe,l to take steps to verify the death of accused No.1 by obtaining the death certihcate and to file an appropriate application before the trial Court in accordance with the law.

10. Accordingiy, the criminal petition is allou'ed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.4622 of 2022 ot 'lzotoy z scc o6z 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6047 of 2025 the hle of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shatl also stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Nampa llv, Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer' WPS, CCS, DD P S ' Hyderabad' 3 One CC to SRl. M N NARASIMHA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] s. Two CD CoPies MKN/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1910612025 ORDER CRLP.No.6047 of 2025 o t ( * IHE S /A 2 4 JUr ?U25 ,oAT .-,\ / r\ I CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED aI e(