In High Court · 2025

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 quash the proceedings in SC No.13712021 in Cr.No.268/2020 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial. 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in SC No.137/2021 in Cr.No.268/2020 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial including apperance of the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4. This -Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and of none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER. /,1 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.41 75 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings agalnst them in S.C No 137 of 2021 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, [\ilancherial The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 49g-A, 506, 313 read with 34 of the lndian Penal code (for short 'rpc') and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ,the Act,).

02. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 and Snrt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State, There is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2 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 on 09.05.201 g. On 19.02.2019 respondent No.2 gave birth to a baby girl and she led marltal lfe happily for three months. Later her husband started harassment by I 2 FI\t saying that if he married someone else he would get more dowry and the accused No 1 with the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 4 started harassing her physically and mentally by demanding addltional dowry from her parents. On 09.02 2020, accused No. I beat her with hot cooking vessel and on being aware of the said instance, her parents took her with them. Later she lodged a complaint and on counseling conducted by the police, her husband took her back to their house. After six months he again started harassing the defacto complainant. Later when she got pregnant, accused No.1 forced her to get aborted or otherwise he would kill her, due to which she agreed but he again beat her to get additional dowry and locked her and her child in the house on 15.11.2020 and did not return. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 4g8-A, 506, 313 read with 34 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. The petitioner-accused- No.2 is the mother, the petitioner_accused \ No.3 is the father, petitioner No.4 is the brother ol'the accused No.1 and they are residing separately from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No.'l . The petitioners never demandt:d any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under St:ctions 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 4, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anothe/ wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph Nos.18, 25 & 31 held that. "18 A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vaEue 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 padicular instance of harassmenf. She has a/so not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and prer;ise allegations. 'atn 2025 supREME couRT 173 -- l 'a-' - 4

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement sltould 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 dlsputes arlse out of a matrimonial discord. Such generatised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the ba-sis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases /o prevent mlsuse of legal provisions and the tegat process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the p/esent 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 residec! in the natimonial 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. 31 . Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 hetd that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husbands c/ose relatives 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 complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. " 5 05 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conductrng trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 06 A bare perusal of the contents of |re complaint appears that there are specific allegations against accused No 1 and further discloses that the petitioners-ac;cused Nos.2 to 4 were living separately from the accused No. 1 and respondent No.2. Therefore, it is clear that thr: petitioners_ accused Nos 2 to 4 were residing separaterly from the accused No 1 and respondent No.2. Further none of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made aga nst them. 07 Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by 6 .r" I \l - \ concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution.

08. Making 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, ilre Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any printa facie case against the husband ancJ his family members before prosecuting the husband anci hrs family menrbers. Hence, the petitioners_accused Nos 2 to 4 cannot be dragged into criminal proseculion and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in ilre abserrce of specific allegations made against each of them. '

09. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the setfled principle of law laid down by the Flonourable Supreme Ctrurt of lndia in the above decisiorr, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against flre petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the ./ l proceedings agatnst the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are liable to be quashed

10. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in S C.No.137 oI 2021 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, N/lancherial, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 3 The lst Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate at M The Station House Officer, Ramakrishnapur Poli Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for Hyderabad [OUT].

4. ohe CC to Sri Kohdadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 5 \ PB I Sd/. M OHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR ON OFFICER erial. tation, Mancherial District e State of Telangana at HIGH COURT DATED: 1510412025 ORDER 14: z? ;G1rrE s r,q I ) 2 0Juil 6 .,o $(' c) *\ CRLP.No.4175 of 2022 \:,: THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED @q;a %- '4"V