The 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 oleased to quash the proceedinqs in CC. No 221 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble ACIVIM at Nampally at Hyderabad against Accused Nos.1 and 2 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC. No. 221 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble AClMlVl at Nampally at Hyderabad against Accused Nos.1 & 2 pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurr )nts of sri c suNlL ANAND ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Additional publ c )rosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1 and none appear for the Responder t No2 The Court made the following: ORDER .(- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIM INAL PETITION No.6577 of 2024 DATED oT DECEMBER 2025 t\ Between V. Sujatha and one another .. Petitioners AND The State of Telangana represented by Public Prosecutor and one another ORDER ... Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C C.No 221 oI 2023 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chref lvletropolitan l"4agistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court'), registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 354 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 02 Heard IVlr. C.Sunil Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr [Vl.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Though 2 the notice was served on respondent No.2 s,l e did not appear either in person or through counsel. perusr> I the material on record 03 Bi'ief facts of the case are that the tetitioner_accused No.1 is the mother-in-law, and the petitioner_ar; used No 2 is the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2. Accordin: to the complaint, the allegations against the petrtioners are that the narrrage between the respondent No.2 and her husband was a l, rve_cum_arlonged marriage, whlch was performed on 20.11.2017. I fter the marriage, they stayed in the in-raws' house. rt is afleged rrat the petitioners and others were not satisfied with the work of th: respondent No 2 and started harassing her on petty issues and ats( used to demand additionar dowry. rt is further aileged that when t- husband of the respondent No.2 was away at work, the petitlo. er_accused No.2 used to approach her, abuse her in filthy languagr, and torture her severely, stating that if she srept with him, he wou < bress her with a baby boy since he had two sons. He also allegeri y stated that her husband never satisfied her. when the respondu rt No.2 informed the wife of the accused No 2 about his behar,,our, instead of supporting her, the wife blamed the respondent No 2 and suppo(ed = 3 her husband. lt is also alleged that the petitioners forced the respondent No.2 to undergo an abortion and sent her to her parents' house with a demand to bring gold and additional dowry Due to the unbearable harassment by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 and her husband have been living separately from the petitioners for the past two years. Even thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 continued to demand additional amounts. Hence, the present complaint 04 lt is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitroners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the respondent No.2, in collusion with her husband, only to wreak vengeance on account of property disputes. He further contended that, on a plain reading of the complaint as well as the charge sheet, no case is ntade out for the alleged offences against the petitioners He further contended that the complaint of the respondent No.2 itself reveals that, for more than two years, she has not been residing with the petitioners, and that the respondent No.2 has purposefully omitted the name of her husband, as both were acting in collusion to demand a share in the property belonging to petitioner-accused No.1. He further contended that the 4 respondent No.2 is adamant in nature and w,; very aggressive towards the joint famiry, and that she provokri her husband to demand partition of the property and live separat_.|y. However, the petitioner No.1 was not agreeable to such a )roposal. He also submitted that there is an agreement dated 12 O() 2O2j between the parties He further contended that the husband rf the respondent No.2 was unemployed and dependent on the p€t tioners for a long time, and that he was also addicted to alcohol a^l other narcotics. He further contended that though the petitioner; have been living separately, the husband of the respondent No 2 ;reated nuisance on severar occasions and assaurted the petitioner; in the presence of panchayat members. He further submitted thai on the very next day of the said panchayat, the husband of the espondent No.2 submitted an apology letter to the panchayat rr :mbers and his family for his misconduct and requested tc reconvene the panchayat to decide upon his father,s property fcr partition among the petitioners and himself He further contended t- at merely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, the petitic ners have been roped into the case and shown as accused Nos.1 : rd 2. Except for bald allegations, no specific overt acts are . t ribtrtecJ to the *Y- 5 petitioners. Hence, he prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners be quashed

05. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the respondent No.2 after her marriage with her husband and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. lt is further contended that all the allegatlons levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

06. For better adludication of the case, Section 498-4 of IPC is also extracted hereunder "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subTects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with impisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall a/so be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-(B)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to dive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(p)harassment of the woman where such itarasstneni is with a view to coercrng her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any propefty 6 or valuable security or is on account of failure by, t tr or any person related to her to meet such demand." 07 ln the Judgment of Sfafe of Haryar a and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon,ble Supre ne Court held as fo!lows "The following categoies of cases can be stated .t illustration wherein the extraordinary power under I t or the inherent powers under Seclion 4g2 Cr.p C exercised by the High Couri either to prevent abt t process of any Couri or othervvise to secure thr justice, though it may not be possrb/e to lay c,r precise, clearly defined and sufftcien y channeri: inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to exhaustive list of myriad krnds of cases wherein suc should be exercised: , way of icle 226 can be ? of the ends of wn any ed and ltve an .t power (1) Where the allegations made in the First ln1 rmation Repod or the complaint, even if they are taken at teir face value and accepted in their entirety do not prit a facie constitute any offence or make out a case ag ) ,jst the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First lnformation Retl ort and other materials if any, accompanying the F.l p. :,r: :ol dlsc/ose a cognizable offence, justifying an investig, tion by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Codc except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview o, )eclion 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontrovefted allegations made in tt.e FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in supporl of tt t same do not disclose the commission of any offence and rt ke out a case against the accused,. the allegations in the FIR do not con.;;tute a offanra ..\nct;lttta fi,f ^nt\, ^ ^^^ ^^ ttutt_w u )_t ttLclt)te (4) Where, cognizable ' rgoz scc 1cn1 azo 7 offence, no investigation is permitted by a potice officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Secllon 1 55(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudenl person can ever reach a lust conclusion that there is sufficient ground for prcceeCing against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

08. ln the Judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Sfafe of Telangana and anothel,lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos 18, 25, 31 and 32 held that: "18. 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 padicular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occuned. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. '202a tnsc gs3 8 'disp-t

25. A mere reference to the names of famity mer bers in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial I t without specific aflegations indicating their active invorven,r,t shourd be nippec| in the bud. lt is a we -recognised fact )orne out of ludicial experience, that there is often a te t lency to implicate all the members of the husband\ fuuty ,rn"n domestic disputes arise out of a matimonial disct rd. Such generalrsed and sweeping acclsalions unsup.. ;;ietl by c.oncrete evidence or pafticularised a egations cat trct form fhe.basrc for criminal prosecution. Coufts mus, exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal c -ovisions and the regar process and avoid unnecessary iatre :;ment of innocent family members. ln the presenl case, tppe ant Nos.2 to 6. who are the members of the family ol ,ppe ant No..1 have been tiving in different cities and have n. resided in the matrimoniat house of appellant No t ani ri: oondent No 2 herein Hence, they cannot be dragged intLt criminal prosecution and the same would be an anise of th: orocess of the law in the absence of specific attegatio,;; made against each of them.

31. Futther, this Courl in preeti Gupta ys. State of J t rrkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 held that the coufts have to be e,. tremely careful artd cautious in deating with these *.pir,:,,rts and must take pragmatic realties into consideration whil,t dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of n",r"r,r,, tent bf the husband's close relatives who had been living rn r rfferent cities and never visitecl or rarely ttisited the ptai .., _t:: !it= complainant resided would have an e,ntirely c ifferent complexion. The attegations of the complainant are |quired to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32 We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugs td FIR N3 82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initia\ d with ulteior motrves io se|/e asainst apperar, i;.';- "::"";:' ;ff;;t ;::rr,,iol:t appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the pres"nt ,, nard fatt: with in catesory (7) of ilu strative r;r;;;; ;;;"" ;;s',,rn,uo "a,ru in Bhajan Lat Therefore, the High Court, in in'" plii', erred in not eyercisino the nn,-o,< -!,^,.,-A,^ "."r, S e c t i o n 4 B 2 C rp C a n d ih e re b ; ;;; ; ;, ; ;;:;:; )i r r,,, :: ;i; : I Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

09. ln numerous cases, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases held that 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 498-4 of the rpc 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 10 In the present case, the petitioners_accused Nos.1 and 2 are the mother-in-raw and brother-in-raw of the respondent No.2. The allegation is that the petitioner-accused No.2 had misbehaved with the respondent No.2 and that the petitioner-accused No.1, who is the mother, had supported him. A perusar of the record discroses that there were property disputes between the husband of the respondent No.2 and the accused No 2 in respect of their" father's property, and an agreement dated 12.09.2021 was executed in 10 relation to the said disputes. The present complerr rt was lodged on 0503.2022. lt is relevant to note that on 1g.O4.2,.r,22, the husband of the respondent No 2 admitted his misbehavior :,,wards the fainily members and panchayath elders and tendered : r apology to his family members and panchayat eiders through ; written apology letter

11. As evident from the averments in the crarge sheet, the respondent No.2 and her husband had been re r iding separately from the petitioners-accused Nos l and 2 for th I preceding two years. Notably, the complaint does not mention ir ry specrftc dates or times of the alleged acts of harassment by the retitioners. lt is also.pertinent that certain individuals who were iir ially arrayed as accused were later deleted from the array aft,: completion of investrg atron.

12. Further, in his statement, the husbarr of respondent No.2 initially stated that their marriage was a rove rr arriage and that _ they resided in his in-laws, house, hov,rever, towarri ; the end of the statement, he claimed that they were residing,separ rtely in a rented house. This inconsistency in his statement, c: -lpled \ h 4h ^ll tg subsisting property disputes at the time of lodgirg the present ^,;+ s7 11 complaint and the absence of specific particulars regarding the alleged incidents, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case. Therefore, it appears that the present complaint has been maliciously instituted by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and to spite them due to personal grudge arising out of the said property disputes, in collusion with her husband

13. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.221 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief tVletropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad Pe!!!!gryi9qgllqnqqug application_s, if qny, s@l! qlaqd clqgeQ. SDI-C.DEEPIKA A SISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally at Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRl. C SUNIL ANAND Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderbad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies I €itl* HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 ORDER CRLP.No.6577 of 2024 c\r. ihE S t,1 t o(J l-o * 3 J l1ll 2026 * hTC CRLP IS ALLOWED * .I