Hyderab High Court · 2025

ORDER This criminal petition is filed under Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short .BNSS) by petitioners/accused Nos.2 .to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.255 of 2O2S on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Ill Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy.

2. Heard Mr. Venkateshrvarlu Dasari, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 artd Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1_State.

3. On the basis of complaint of respondent No.2, FIR bearing No.480 of 2024 came to be registered on 26.11.2024 at Women Police Station, Saroornagar, under Sections 49gA and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short .lpC,) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short .Dp Act). Charge Sheet is filed on 06.0l .2025 on the file of III Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-Ill Additional Judicial 2 JAK, J CRLP 63E8 2025 ^t \ \t\, Magistrate of First class, Ranga Reddy, under sections 498A,406 and 506 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dp Act.

4. It is alleged in the complaint by respond.ent No.2 (mother-in-law of accused No.1) that her daughter (Nithya,s) marriage was performed with accused No.l (Alimineti Rahul Reddy) on 26.ro.2023. That at the time of marriag e, 40 lakhs cash, 35 tulas of gold and '/z kg silver were given as dowry. It is further alleged that her daughter and accused No.l lived happily for 10 days, that after 10 days, accused No.I left for Australia. It is stated that her daughter stayed with her in- laws and during her stay of two months, she was mentafly harassed. That her daughter left for Australia and stayed with her husband.

5. It is alleged in the complaint that her daughter came to know about divorce of her husband (accused No.l) and her daughter was harassed physically and mentally and I pressurized to sell the property on her n€une and get cash. It is further alleged that her daughter was harassed on the ground that the amount of dowry given was not enough. That accused No.1 left her daughter at a friend's place in Australia t 3 JAK, J CRLP 638E 2025 and did not respond to the phone calls made by her daughter and these facts were informed by her daughter. It is stated that, when the complainant informed the parents of accused No. 1 about their son's acts, they threatened her, (if she discloses the facts to others). Hence, action be initiated against accused.

6. l,earned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 submitted that on a perusal of the complaint, FIR, Charge Sheet and other documents on record, the contents do not disclose any physical or mental harassment by petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, except general and omnibus allegations. It is further submitted that there are no particularized allegations or atty overt acts attributed to petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4. It is.also submitted that there are no specific aliegations indicating the active involvement of petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, except the statement that during her daughter's stay for a brief period after the marriage, she was harassed mentally. That in the complaint, there are no details of harassment, hence, the 4 JAK, J CRLP 63EE 2025 \ ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out from the complaint and the record.

7. It is submitted by the counsel that the Hon'ble Apex Court in DaraLakshml Naraganaa. State ofTelanganal had held ttrat if no specilic allegations are fortJrcoming, omnibus allegations are insufficient for prosecuting the family members in matrimonial disputes.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l-State submitted that allegations are with regard to physical and mental harassment and proceedings be allowed to continue. It is further submitted that there are accusations against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, therefore, it is not a fit case for interference. g. None appears for respondent No.2. Postal track report bearing consignment No.RN170410291 is submitted to the Court, in which, it is reflected that personal notice was delivered to respondent No-2 on 2a.O6.2O25. ' (202s) 3 scc 73s i 7 5 JAK, J CRLP 6388 2025

10. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions. 1 1. On the basis of complaint by mother-in-law (mother of Nithya, wife of accused No.1), an FIR bearing No.4B0 of 2024 came to be registered on 26.11.2024. Charge Sheet is filed in the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy, under Sections 498A, 406, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After the marriage of complainant's daughter (Nithya), Nithya stayed in her in-law's house for a brief period of two months. It is tire case of complainant that her daughter was harassed mentally at her in-law's place There are no specific instances of harassment mentioned in the complaint to her daughter by the petitioners/accused. No statement as to who harassed her daughter mentally is spelled out, except stating that her daughter while residing at her in-law's house, petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 harassed her, but no acts or instances are forthcoming from the complaint 6 JAK, J CRLP 6388 2025 !.

12. Complainant's daughter left for Australia after two months of marriage. The grievance of the mother is that her daughter's husband was divorced earlier and it was not disclosed. The allegation that accused No.1 kept her daughter at a friend's place and stopped responding to the calls cannot in any way be attributed to petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4. No details as to who threatened her with consequences, when the complainant brought to the notice of accused Nos.2 to 8 about the acts of accused No.l is not forthcoming. No specilics as to the date or month of alteged harassment meted out to her daughter a-re seen from the record.

13. On a perusal of the complaint, FIR, Charge Sheet and record, it is evident that after two months of her marriage, complainant's daughter left for Australia. Marriage took place on 26.10.2023 and after two months, Nithya left for Australia. From January, 2024 till the date of complaint i.e.,

26.L1.2O24, the complainant's daughter was not in India. She was in Australia, the accused are residents of India 7 JAK, J CRLP 638t 2025

14. The complaint is lodged by mother on the basis of the information received from her daughter. If at all there was any harassment meted out to complainant's daughter, during her brief stay in lndia, a complaint could have been made during her stay in India, but no such complaint is made against the accused. It is only in the month of November, 2024, Nithya's mother gave the complaint without details or instances of trarassment, the allegations are omnibus in nature. No allegations of harassment are spoken of.

15. The Horrble Apex Court, while dealing with Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, in Dara Lakshmi Narago;na (supra), at paragraph Nos.27, 30, 32 and 33, held as follows: "27 . A mere reference to the names of family members rn a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, bome out of juciicial experience, that there is often a tenciency to implicate all the members of the husband's family rvhen domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of \- 8 JAK, J CRLP 6388 2025 innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.l 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 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them."

30. The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing t'endency to misuse provisions like Section 498-AIPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, 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-AIPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

32. In the above context, this Court in G. V. Rao u. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 :2000 SCC (Cri) 733] observed as follows : (SCC p. 698, para l2l "12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the mnin purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging -\ ^ c I I 9 JAK J CRLP 6388 2025 matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their iisputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes .r."ri a.d vears to conclude and in that process itre partiei lose their "young" days in chasing their "cascs" in different courts."

33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta u' State o'f iiarxho"dilzoto'1 z scc 667 : (2010) 3 scc (cri) 4731 held that t'he courts have to be extremely careful and in dealing with these complaints and must take """tio"" oraematic realties into consideration while dealing with '-rEimot iat cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where ihe complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are r"q"i."a to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection-"

16. On a perusal of the said judgment of Apex Court' it is apparent that vague and generalized allegations in matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, would lead to misuse of legal Process.

17. On a perusal of the entire record, it is observed that accusations are generaliT-ed and sweeping in nature ' There are no particularized allegations. No instances of active involvement of petitioners/accused Nos'2 to 4 xe forthcoming. Instances of ha-rassment are not spelled out' baseless allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. 10 JAK, J CRLP 638E 2025

18. In the absence of specific and particularized, allega.tions and there being no active involvement of the accused Nos.2 to 4/petitioilers, continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it appropriate that proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in c.c.No.255 of 2025 on the file of III Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-Ill Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Ranga Reddy, be quashed and are accordingly quashed.

19. For reasons aforesaid, this criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand ciosed. SD/- AHM.ED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISiNNN 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Addr Judiciar Magistrate or First iE {'6!:3X'"*X.lrTT S,,{:|]lse-cumlrr The station House officer, p;ri;" station saroornagar wps, Rachakonda i:il{:f ffi *111=.1*o_. ;;; ;#,e roP UCI pnbsEcui-o-n, Hiin cil'#tho staie Lr r"r"ns,n" IHr:3:J:.f,[',?f -'- Two CD Copiei SL o\ t \ \ To, 1 2 3 4.

5. t- , t l 'il-'.- C r I L.- 'j., A ?J 1 6 JAl'l 2O2E ,7. * ') HIGH COURT DATED: O1l0gl2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6388 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED b