High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad. -..1'' RespondenUState 2 Smt.Nalla Rashmi alias Belide Rashmi, Wo.B-Swagath Kumar, age 31 years, Occ. Housewife, Rio,H.No.1 1-5-357, Road No.B, Venkateswara Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. ...2"d RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Me-morandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to call for the records relattng to CC. No.1067 f 2022 on the file of Court of X Addl. [t/etropolitan Magistrate-cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and quash the proceedings in CC.No.1067 of 2022 l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.1067 of 2022 on lhe file of Court of X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate-cum- Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the criminal petition and This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusing the [\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER o THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4025 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C No.1067 of 2022 on the file of X Additional Metropotitan l\/agistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B.Nagar The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and sections 3 and 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 6, Sri V.Ganesh, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr.V.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Asslstant Public Prosecutor for ttre State. Perused the record.

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was solemnized about nine years ago. Respondent No.2 was 2 III working as a software consultant in USA and at the insistence of the family members of her husband' 2^d respondent remained as housewife lt is alleged that her husband and in laws have demanded to bring additional dowry and that the 5th petitioner herein went to the house of parents of defacto complainant and asked for Rs 1 Crore to repay loan but they expressed their inability, which resulted in tensions in the family of the 2nd respondent 2"d respondent gave birth to a baby boy on 26 04 2019 and her parents arrived to USA to assist her, and when they wanted to take her back to lndia, her husband and in laws picked up a quarrel and stated that if she was allowed to go to lndia' she has to stay at tvlumbai. She stayed there for a month and herinlawsilltreatedherandhumiliatedonthegroundthat her parents did not help in repaying the loan amount' Later her husband sent notice to her asking her to come back to USA along with child but on the pretext that 2nd respondent made unreasonable demands he did not arrange for dependent VISA but asked her to come on visiting VISA' Thus, the petitioners alleged to have conspired to destroy her marital life. Hence, the respondent No 2 filed the present a case for the offences under Sections 498-4 of lpC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2 lt is submitted that the petitioners did not demand the 2nd respondent for payment of additional dowry from her parents. But the 2nd respondent herself demanded her husband to stop sending any amounts to his parents and also made some other unreasonable demands. Except sending of amounts by accused No.1 to his parents, there are no disputes between the husband and wife. Even according to the 2nd respondent, the alleged offences said to have been taken place in USA and no part of offence has taken place in lndia The petitioner-accused No.2 is the father, the petitioner- accused No.3 is the mother of the accused No..l , the petitioner_ accused No.4 and 5 are brothers of the accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.6 is the sister in law of accused No..l and they are residing in lndia separately from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and I i l I l I 4 the accused No.1. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. 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 sections 3 and 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another' wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph Nos.'18, 24 and 25 held that "!!. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassmenl 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 allegations. 24. lnsofar as appellant tVos 2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos 2 to 6 other than ' atR 2025 SUPREME couRT 173 t / 5 stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry lt is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively. 25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, 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 implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic dlspules arlse out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or pafticularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases fo 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.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 iri the absence of specific allegations made against each of them."

05. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or othenrvise would come out only 6 after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State also prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

07. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint discioses that the after marriage of the accused No.'1 and 2nd respondent they left to USA after 10 days of marriage and were living there and the petitioners herein never lived with them at any instance and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 were living in lndia separately from accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 6 were residing separately from the accused No.1 and resPondent No.2.

08. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific ijetails or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution. ( 7 -l

09. trlaking 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 49BA of the lpC 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. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 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 6 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 are liable to be quashed. I I 8

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 6 in C C.No.1067 of 2022 on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed I //TRUE COPY// Sd/-MOHD.ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, lTheXAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate-cum-AdditionalJuniorCivilJudge, Ranga ReddY District at LB Nagar' \ \

2.TheStationHouseOfficer,SaroornagarPoliceStation'RachakondaDistrtct 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUT]

4. One CC to SRI A PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies. HIGH COURT DATED:2310412025 ORDER CRLP.No.4025 of 2O22 \_ -+ o {.( TttE S}< t 21 ,luu 6 P4TcHt r-\ -\ c_ t:\ t,i (a .l\- THE CRIMINAL PETETION IS ALLOWED 6w 2+t, --'.laft-.