The High Court · 2025

3. Alladi Rani, Wo Sridhar, D/o. Palleveni Swamy Aged about 3't years, Occ Software Employee, R/o Q. No. 1005, Block No. 13, MD Quarters, Manjurnagar, Chelpur Village, Ghanpur Mandal, Jayashankar- Bhupalapally District ...RESPONDENT/WIFE OF ACCUSED No.1 , a' r'j,Y . -_ 1:=f '$:-;:j;- ? Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that rn the circumstances stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to Quash proceedings in C. C. No. 92 of 2024, rcndtng on the frle of Judicial 1st class l\/agistrate at Bhupalapally against the pe:itioners/accused No. 2to7. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P C praying that n the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition the High Court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings rn C. C No. 92 of 20114 pending on the file of Judicial 1st class l\/lagistrate at Bhupalapally against the petitioners /accused No.2 to 7, including appearance of the petitio ne rs/accu sed 1l to 7 This Petition corning on for hearing, upon perusing the l\,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurnents of Sri SARAT CHANDRA SIVALENKA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sirt JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the learned Additional Public Prosecutcr on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri B. SHESHU KUMAR Advocat: for the Respondent Nos 2&3. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6707 OF 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, '1973 (hereinafter 'CrPC'), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 92 of 2024 on the file of the learned Princrpal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class lVlagistrate, Bhupalapally, Jayashankar-Bhupalapally District.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 7 in the aforesaid Calendar Case facrng accusattons for the offences punishable under Sectrons 498-4, 506 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 .

3. I have heard Mr. Sarat Chandra Srvalenka, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State and Mr.B.Sheshu Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4. The facts of the case, in summary, are that respondent No.2, the de facto complainant and father of respondent No.3 (the victim), lodged a police complaint alleging that, at the time of his daughter's marriage to accused No.1, he gave Rs.22,00,000/- in cash and gold ornaments valued at Rs.8,00,000/- to accused No,1 and his parents. lt is further 2 .,i.1 .!.-ii; - *. d- { 3 \ ,\ l :... .:: alleged that, subsequent to the marriage, accused No l along with the present petitioners (arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 7) subjected respondent No 3 to both physical and mental harass nrent, compelling her to bring one-fourth of her father's property as additional dowry Further, a mediation was convened on 23.01 .2023 bef ore elders and respondent No 2, pursuant to which the elders decided that respondent No.3 should join accused No.1 in the United Kingdonr to continue their marital life. However, it is alleged that even in the U K.. accused No.1 continued to subject respondent No.3 to mental anrl physical cruelty, forcing her eventual return to lndia. Consequently, the present complainUpolice report was filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the marriage between respondent No 3 and accused No.1 was solemnized on

24.11.2021. The petitioners visited Beeramguda orr 25.11.2021 and thereafter proceeded to Vemulawada, following whici they returned to their respective residences. Respondent No.3, mearnwhile, stayed at her sisler's house from 13.12.2021 to 20.12.2021 after which she resided with accused No.1 until 07.01 .2022. She orrce again left and rejoined accused No.1 on 07.02.2022, but departed on 10.02.2022. Accused No.1 subsequently left for the U.K. on 11.02.2022, and respondent No.3 joined him there on 23.0'1 .2023, r:rnainrng with him until 04.03.2023 Thus, in total, respondent No 3 cohabited with ll},€@ffi '-'*r' -:"' .7 3 NllU (.t.i t'.No. t:t)/ 0J'2021 accused No 1 for approximately 68 days-28 days in Hyderabad and 40 days in the U.K. For the remainder of the time, she resided with her sister and family, and at no point did she live with the petltioners (accused Nos 2 to 7) Moreover, the complaint does not specify any particular date, time, or incident of harassment attributable to the petitioners that could constitute an offence under Section 498-4 of the lPC. Respondent No.3 never lodged any complaint with the U.K. authonties during her stay there. The parents-in-law (petitioners Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.2 and 3) never cohabited with respondent No.3. Petitioners Nos.3 and 4/accused Nos,4 and 5 did not meet respondent No.3 at all after the marriage. Petitioners Nos.S and 6/accused Nos.6 and 7 also never lived with or interacted with respondent No 3 Even the statements of prosecutron witnesses fail to disclose any incriminating act against the petitioners. Witnesses 5 and 6 are not direct witnesses. Notably, respondent No.3 (Listed Witness No.2) herself admitted that she wished to travel abroad for sightseeing and to fulfill her ambition of visiting foreign countries, and further expressed disinterest in continuing her marital relationship. Therefore, the materials on record do not disclose any essential ingredient of the .alleged offences, and the petitioners appear to have been arrayed as 4 ( t .t, \., tt-l).-. t4 20:1',.,. j ,r. ,]; accused merely to harass them. Accordingly, learne I cor,rnsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing of the proceedings 6 Conversely, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the witnesses have specifically named the parents-in law, sister-in-law, and brothers-in-law in their statements. Hence, the veraoty of these allegations requires scrutiny during trial

7. I have perused the materials on record B. The prosecution has, in support of its case. examined six witnesses: the de facto complainant (respondent No 2), hrs daughter (respondent No 3/victim), the mother and brother of respondent No.3, and two mediators. The statements of the family members (listed witnesses 1 to 4) are consistent and uniform, reiterating the allegations without providing specific instances. The mediators, in their depositions, also confirmed only what had been conveyed to them by the complainant's family. Similarly, listed witnesse; 5 and 6 made statements on the basis of information received f.om the de facto complainant, and thus, they are not direct witnesses tc any alleged acts of cruelty

9. Before delving into the merits of the case. it is pertinent to .examine the scope of Section 498-4 lPC, which reads; as follows ( 5 AlR,/ 670; ail0ll (-,.i P ^o. '4984 Husband or relative of husband of a woman subiecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, sublects sttch woman to cruelty shall be punished with intprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall a/so be fine- liable to Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilfut conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave iniury or danger to tife, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.'

10. From the above, it is evident that, in order to constitute an offence under Section 498-4 lPC, the married woman must have been sublected to cruelty or harassment either by her husband or by his relatives. Such cruelty may be physical or mental, but it must be deliberate and of such gravity that it is either likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave in.iury or danger to her life, limb, or health. Alternatively, harassment must be with the specific object of coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands of dowry or property. 6 \, t .l)'\, 4 t)- ,, :tt:i ., 11 . ln essence. the conduct of the accused must be such that it is capable of driving respondent No.3 to commit suicirie. or of causing serious injury or danger to her life or health, or it rnust amount to harassment for fulfillment of unlawful dowry demairds l.he Hon ble Supreme Courl rn Dara Laxmi Narayana and aihers v. State of Telangana and Another [2025 (3) SCC 735] emphasizeJ that matrimonral drsputes cannot rest upon vague or sweeping allega:ions Likewise, in State of Haryana v Bhalan Lal 11992 Suppl SCC 33'Jl Preeti Gupta v. State ofJharkltand12010 (7) SCC6671 , and GV Rao t LHV prasacl [2000(3) SCC 693] the Apex Court underscored that Oourts must adopt a cautious and pragmatic approach while dealing rarith matrimonial disputes. Allegations of harassment against distant relatives of the husband, particularly those residing in different places and not cohabiting wrth the complainant, must be closely scrutinized. Proceedings initiated with an oblique motive to setfle personal scores fall within category (7) of the illustrative parameters in Bhajan Lal and warrant exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.p.C.

12. ln the present case, the allegations of harassment against the petitioners are general, omnibus, and devoid of pailiculars. lt is also undisputed that respondent No.3 cohabited with accused No.1 for less than a month in lndia and about 40 days in the U.K She did not lod.gdi eny complaint before the authorities during l- er stay abroad. l \'lR,/ Lri P.\a. 6707 al )0?1 Furthermore, no witness has stated that the petitioners lived with respondent No.3 and accused No.1 or directly participated in any acts of cruelty. Even the mediators' statements, when carefully examined, reveal only a vague allegation that there was a demand for one-fourth share of respondent No.2's property as additional dowry as informed by the de facto complainant. No specific act of physical abuse is attributed to the petitioners, nor is there any circumstance indicating that their conduct coerced respondent No.3 to bring additional dowry or posed grave danger to her life or health

13. In light of the foregoing, there is no convincing material on record to proceed against the petitioners. ln the absence of even a prima facie case, continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Resultantly, all proceedings in C.C. No 92 of 2024 onthe flle of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhupalapally, Jayashankar-Bhupalapally District, are hereby quashed against the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 7.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed II fWvatY U To, ASSISTA SD/- A JAYASREE NT REGISTRAR , /e' SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judrcial I class Magistrate at Bhupalapally, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District

2. The Station House Officer, Ghanpur Police Station, Jayashankar Bhupally. ...rrtj:**&aB".r !.L.ff - i- - .r 3 One CC to SRl. SARAT CHANDRA SIVALENKA Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to Sri B SHESHU KUt\4AR, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court fo- the State of Telangana [OUT] 6 Two CD CoPies 1 AII\,1/ARK M. HIGH COURT DATED: 2910812025 i ORDER CRLP.No.6707 of 2024 It1B o ( T t.t- Ll 3oo[IM I 3'-..'',, ,.'-,'''' .,,- ,,i jj,:, ./:/ I ALLOWING THE CRLP 1 n 0 rC

1.\