Furtlter this Court in Preeti Gupta v. Stafe o,' Jharkt an

1. The State of .Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of for the State of Telangana,At Hyderabad.

2. Syed Khamrunnisa Begum, Wo.Shareef, D/o.[\/d.Azmath Ali, age 35 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No..14 4 19, (Q.No.275), Bellampally Basthi, Bellampally town, Mancherial District. ... Res pondenUCompla ina nt 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 call for the records relating to C.C.No.241 ot 2021 on the file of court of Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Bellampalli and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.241 of 2021 . l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition unde:r [jection 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the :ircumstances stated in the [\/enrorarttlum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the H gh Court may be pleased to stay all tutther proceedings including appearance of tht, petitioners in C C.No.241 of :2-021 on the file of court of Judicial Firs;t C a-'s lt4agistrate at Bellampalli, pendrng ciir;posal of the criminal petition. This Petrtion c:ming on for hearing, upon p6rusinq thrl I\4( jmorandum of Grounds of crininal t)etition and upon hearing the arguments of s iA Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and smt. S. Madhavi, Assistant [)ulrlic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None Appeared for th: Respondent No.2. The Court made thr-'tollowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3633 o12022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C C No 241 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class IVagistrate at Bellarnpalli. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act') 02 Heard Sri A Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 and Smt.S.tvladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. No representation on behalf of the unofficial resporrdent No.2 Perused the record

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No.1 wrth the respondent No 2 was solemnized about twelve years ago They lived happily for eight years. There are no issues to the accused No.'l and the respondent No2 The accused No.1 with the instigation 2 I- \-= " '' of the accus,:d Nos.2 to 7 started harassing her chysically and mentarll\/ by demanding additional dowry from her parents Fcur years ago, a panchayath held by elders .was wherein the accused No 1 undertook to look afier the 'respondent lrl: 2 properly, but failed to do so. Hr:nr:e. the respondent I',lc 2 filed the present case for the olfences under Seclrorrs 498-4 of IPC and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition r\ct 04 -e,itrned counsel for petitioners submrtte,d that the petitroners are nothing to do with the allegerj ofr,ences and that ther,, never harassed the respondent Nc 2 The petitioner-acr;u,;ed No.2 is the mother, the petitroner-a :cused No.3 is the v6;6ggp brother, the petitioner-accused No 4 is the elder sister-in-law, the petitioner-accused No.s is the y.lunger sister, the pertilir:ner-accused No.6 is the elder brother ar.rd the petitioner-acc us;ed No.7 is the paternal uncle of the ar:,cused No.1. The pet,t,oner-accused No.2 is aged about 75 years and resrding alonlt ,,vith her elder son i.e. the petitioner_accusec No 6 The petitioner- ac cused No.3 and 4 who are husband anc w fe are residing sepa rately at Khadar Colony. The petilioner ac cused No.5 and ,z are the residents of Mubarak Nagar. The p:ti-ioner, 3 accused No.6 as the resident of C Colony' The petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 7 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No 1 The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No Z or from her parents' There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-4 of IPC and 3, 4 of the Act' While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 7, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v' Sfate of Telangana and anotherl wherein the Honourable Supreme Courl of lndia at Paragraph Nos 18' 25 & 31 held that. "18. A bare perusal of the FlR.shows that the allegitions made by respondent No 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her ancl that appellant Nos'2 to 6 instigated him to do so' respondent No 2 has not provided any specific details or described any pafticular instance of. harassment She has a/so not mentioned the time. date, place. or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred' Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegation s. 25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arisrng out of a ' qrn zous suPnevlr couRT 173 4 t matrtrnarial dispute, without specific allegatior.t:; inciicatir,g their active involvement should ,5e nipperl in the bud. lt is a well-recognised f act. bonle ottt of judicial experience, that there is often a lendcncy to implicate all the members of th() hu::b',n I s family when domestic dis,putes aris', oul oi a ntatrimonial discord. Such generalised and sw-oeping accusations unsuppofted ,by cotlcrcte evidence or particularised allegation:; cannct fttrm fhe basls for criminal prosecution Court:; ,ttust exercise caution in such cases hr prevettt rnisuse of legal provisions and the legal proceris and avoid unnecessary harassment oF innoce'n; family members ln the present case aptrtellar t Nos 2 to 6, who are the members of the' fantily ot appellant No t have been livrng rr dtfferent cities and have not resided in the' matrintolral house of appellant No.1 ancl resoand?nt No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged ;nto criminal prosecution and the sante would ltz an abuse of the process of the law it the absetnce of specific allegations made against eac.:lt c.'f ttte nt. 37 Furtlter this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. Stafe o,' Jharkt an7 (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious ir, dealinLl with these complaints and must take pragntatIc realties into consideration while dealing with na'nnonial cases. The allegations ci har.assme n[ by the husband's c/ose relatives who hacl be'en living in different cities and never visiteo or rarely isited the place where the complainant resrdetl would have an entirely different contplrtrrctn The allegations of the complainant are requ'red to be scrutinized with great care and circunt spetction." , 5 05 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or othenruise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition 06 A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 were living separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No 2, at different colonies of Ramagundam Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 were residing separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No.2 07 A mere glance at the contents of the charge sheet shows that the alleged incident of demand in connection with additional dowry occurred prior to 14 122017 at Ramagundam and the same was reported on 14 122020 at about 20:00 hours There is no explanation, muchless, plausible explanation forthcoming from the respondent No.2, as to why such a huge delay of three years was caused in lodging the complaint 5 08 Except stating that there was a nrental and physical lra-iassment caused by the accused, therr,> are no specific details or descriptive particulars of in stances of harassment r;aused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7. Here, it rs to be noted that the date of marriage, muchless year of marriage, was also not mentioned. Such generali:;ed and sweeping ac;r:usations unsupported by concrete eviclence or particularis,:d allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecutiorr 09 lrlaking vague and generalised allegaticnr; during matrimonia c.onflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the n risuse of legal process,es and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a vrife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke SerJion 49BA of the IPC against the husband and his family in rtrrler to seek compliance with the un.easonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bouncl t<i ensure whether therrer is any prima facle case against the husb;and and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family mentbers. Hence, the petitioners-accused l,lor,.2 to 7 cannot be c raglged rnto criminal prosecution and the siln e would be an abus e r)f process of the law in the absence of specific allegations rnade against each of them. / / 7

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 against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 are liable to be quashed 11 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 in C.C No.241 of 2021on the file of the learned Judicial First Class lt/lagistrate at Bellampalli, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// - sbl- uouo' tsuatl DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Judicial First Class IVIag istrate At BellamPalli, The Station House officer, BellamP alli Town, Ramagundam Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad (OUT) ljl,; #;; iii n'praonarar Rao Advocate [oPUC] Two CD CoPies eriyal District, \ To,

1. 2 3. 4 E DS ,AR HIGH COURT JS, J DATED:0210,112025 ORDER CRLP.No.36il3; of 2022 6E S.TAI 1 A ;) (.q -)',3 21 l'llrY 2[l'5 * Dt-Spa J. , r'V'.\t\ , ? '::-::'t-' l/r' ^// -/ THE CRIMINI\I- PETITION IS ALLOWED CIF' AS INFRUCTUOUS v l)