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 pleased to quash the C.C.No.91OQ of 2022 on the file of tV AJCJ cum XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad filed on the basis of the charge sheet dated 2811112022 U/s. a98(A) IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.p. Act filed in FIR No. 802 ot 2022 dated 1211012022 on the file of the KPHB Potice Station, Medchal District on the complaint made by the Respondent no.2 herein on 1211012022 against the Petitioners herein. l.A. NO:10F 2023 Petition uncier section 492 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds otcriminat'pelition, the High co;.t;;y ue pleased to stay all further proceedings in c.c.No-gioo of 2o22 on the file of lV AJCJ cum XV Additionat Metr.opoiitan tvlagistiaie at Kukatpa,y, CyOerrOaO including the presenc<: of the petitione, neoin." -- -'- This Petition crrming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri r surya satish, Advocate for the petitioners and smt. s tuJonavi, n."i.t"nt prur" Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Siva prasad n,irrr*,, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the frrllowing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6002 of 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.9100 of 2022 on the file of lV AJCJ cum XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498-4 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 T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, Sri Siva Prasad Allaparthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 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 in the year 2019. After their marriage they were blessed with a baby girl. Later petitioners used to quarrel ,f 2 with her and demanded additional dowry and abused her Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-4 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition 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 respondent No.2 for additional dowry. The petitioner-accused No 2 is the father and the petitioner-accused No.3 is the mother of the accused No.1 and they are residin! separately from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and 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 and 3. 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 and 3, learned counsel for the 3 petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anothey' wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph Nos.18, 25 and 31 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.Z to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any pafticular instance of harassmenl. She has a/so not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the aileged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case aiising out of a matrimonid dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial expeience, that there is often a tendency to implicate ail the members of the husband's family when domestic dlspufes anse out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courfs musf exercise caution in such cases fo prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legat process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. tn the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been tiving in different cities and have not resided in the AIR 2025 SUPREME COURI 173 4 matimonial house of appeltant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be draggerl into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific altegations made against each ol them. 31. Furlher, this Court in preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 held that tie courts have b be extremely carefu! and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration white deating with ntatrimonial cases The ailegations of harassment by the husbands c/ose relatives who had be<ln living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different comple.<ion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circu mspection. "

05. Learned counsel for itre respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only 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 baie perusal of the record discloses that there are no specific allegations against the accused Nos.2 and 3 ,.5' 5 who are father and mother of the accused and only vague and omnibus allegations are levelled against them and the offences alleged against the petitioners are not made out. The only allegation against them is that they have instigated accused No.1 who is the defacto complainant, due to which accused No.t harassed the respondent No.2 for petty issues mentally and physically for additional dowry and that the petitioners No.2 and 3 never resided with 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 details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution

09. 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 498ffi the IPC against the husband and his 6 family in order to seek compriance with the unreasonabre 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 famiry members. Hence, the petitioners_accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be dragged into criminar prosecution and the same wourd 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 setfled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners_accused and 3 amounts to abuse of process of raw, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be quashed. Though the proceedings against the No. 1 are to be continued the appearance of the petitioner_accused No..l is dispensed with before the petitioner-accused Nos.2 trial Court.

11. Accordingly, this allowed. Consequenfly, the Criminal petition is partly proceedings against the -+-,. _-1 7 petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3 in C.C No.9100 of 2022 on the file of lV AJCJ cum XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed. Further, the appearance of the petitioner_accused No. 1 is dispensed with before the trial Court unless his presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition of petitioner/accused No.1 being represented by his counsel on every date of hearing. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, . The lV AJCJ cum XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally' 1 Cyberabad . The station House Officer, KPHB Police Station, Medchal . Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at 2 3 Hyderabad (OUT) . One CC to Sri T Surya Satish, Advocate [OPUC] . One CC to Sri Siva Prasad Allaparthi, Advocate [OPUC] . Two CD Copies 4 5 6 ADK/PSw I HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 ORDER GRLP.No.6002 of 2023 16 J * Ur pii.c\ >. * PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLP 1ur