In Kahkashan Kausar Sonam and others v. State of Biharr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the abst

1. The State of Telangana, rep. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Komali Perni, S/o Naresh Kumar, Aged 26 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o Plot No.366, Mathrusri Nagar, IVIiyapur, Serilingampally, Hyderabad. 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 CC.No.2271 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally. ...Respondents ..t l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.2271 oI 2019 on the file of the Court of the Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, pending disposal the Criminal Petitiot.t. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.S. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Jella Srikanth, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4751 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Al to A5 in C.C.No.227l of 2Ol9 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 42O, 506 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The petitioners were arrayed as A1 to A5 in the charge sheet filed by the Miyapur Police Station for the offences under Sections 498-A, 42O, 506 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The 2"d respondent filed a complaint on 2O.O4.2O19 alleging that her marriage with A1 was performed on 24.02.2019. At the time of marriage, her parents gave a dowry of Rs.20.00 lakhs as per the demand of the accused. Trwo or three days after the date of marriage, A1 and others started harassing her both physically and mentally by demanding the additional dowry. Further, they also 2 took 95 tulas of gold by beating her. Further, the petitioners were demanding that half of her father's propert5r be 1-ransferred in their name. Though A1 claimed that he completed M.Tech from IIIT Hyderabad, however, her enquiry revealed that he had only joined a Post Graduate Programme and had not. enrolled in a Ph.D programme at IIIT, Hyderabad. In the bio-data sent prior to the marriage, it was mentioned that A1 had an annual income of Rs.45,60,000/-. However, this was incorrect, and the actual income is unknown. Accordingly, on the basis of the said investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 498-A, 42O, and 506 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of tht: petitioners would submit that: i) The 2"a respondent admitted that she lived with A1 for only six days and otrt of the six days, five days wer(l spent performing the post-marital rittials, and on the 6th day, Al left to take care of his ailing mother/A3 ii) A,2 to A5 did not reside with the 2"d respondent under the same roof since the date of marriage as A1 and the 2"d respondent 3 were traveling. The said fact is evident from the cross-examination of the 2'd respondent in the DVC case. iii) The 2.d respondent left the company of A1 on 03.O3.2O19. id Admittedly, the petitioners and the 2"d respondent did not reside together to infer any harassment attracting an offence under Section 498-A or Section 506 of IPC. Further, the case filed by the

2.d respondent under Section 506 of IpC in C.C.No.665O of 2O2l was dismissed on 03.I1.2022. v) Though the 2nd respondent filed a domestic violence case, i.e., DVC No.61 of 2019, the sarne was dismissed, observing that there was no cruelt5r against the 2.d respond.ent. vi) There is no offence of cheating made out. Multiple cases and proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, including a d.omestic violence case, a criminal intimidation case, an Emait hacking case, and a criminal harassment complaint filed by the father of the 2'd respondent. vii) None of the allegations regarding the demand for dowry prior to the marriage can be believed, as the 2nd respondent 4 admitted before Telangana State Human Rights Commission (TSHRC) via TSHRC No.l253l2O2l, in their reply dated

17.O5.2O2I , that Al and his family members r,:fused any form of dowry or property. viii) It is clear from the Section 161 Cr.P.C statements that the

2.d respondent resided with A'1 for less than si-:r days. As such, it is highly improbable that there was any phLysica-l or mental harassment during the 1"t week of the marriage.

5. The following are the complaints and cas,:s filed by the 2.d respondent Date Case filed Jurisdiction Status

20.o4.20L9 Dor,r''ry Harassment C.C.No.2277/2079 Miyapur KPHB Delhi Punjagutta

20.o4.20t9 DVC complaint hled in KPHB Court vide DVC No.61l2O19

23.r2.2020 Criminal

20.L7.2019 Transfer Criminal Petition to tralsfer C.C.No.227 t /2019 intimidation filed CC No.665O/2021 under Section 506 Email to.o2.2020 hacking case Pending tria-l (present case) Case was dismissed on t)9.OI.2O23 Casre was dismissed on rl7.ll.2Ol9 Cas;e was dismissed on ()3. tt.2022 M*9, Tilak Delhi Aft-e:r investigation, Delhi Police closed the casr3. ] 5

08.o2.202L Criminal harassment complaint frled father of respondent Tilak Mark Delhi 2"a After investigation, Delhi police closed the

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2'd respondent did not deny the fact that l"t petitioner and 2"d respondent stayed together for only six days and that there were differences between them, leading to filing of several cases as tabulated above. However, the learned counsel submits that the offence under Section 498-A is a. continuing offence, and that A1 ald the 2na respondent staying together only for six days will not, in any matrner, impact the cruelty meted out to the 2"d respondent.

7. Since the 2"d respondent admitted to the DVC proceedings, the admissions therein, and also the outcome of the complaints hled against A1 and others, the said documents can be looked into for the purpose of adjudicating the quash petition.

8. It is peculiar conduct on the part of the 2.d respondent to file several complaints when it is admitted that they stayed together for only six days, and that too, petitioners 2 to 5 were not staying with 6 them during this period. It cannot be said that edl these petitioners deliberately harassed the 2"d respondent.

9. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Biharr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the abst:nce of specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the p,166sedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are implicated solely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case o[ Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand', held that the Courts nrust scrutinize the allegations with great care and circumspection, especially against the husband's relatives who reside in different cities and have rarely visited or stayed with the couple. 1 1. The genuineness of the complaint and the background of the cases hled by the 2"d respondent have to be looked into. It is admitted that A1/1"t petitioner and the 2"d respondent stayed together for only six days and that other petitioners 2 to 5 did not stay together with them at any point of time. Adrnittedly, petitioners ' 1zoZ21 o Supreme Corrrt Cases 599 '(2O10) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667 7 2 to 5 were staj^ng separately. The marriage rituars took place for nearly five days, Ieaving only one day as the 6e day. The allegations leveled in the complaint create any arnount of doubt about its correctness. It appears that the disputes are on account of some ego issues ald the allegations appear to be false in the background of the admissions made by the 2nd respondent. In view of the foregoing discussion, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be permitted to continue. L2. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/ A1 to A5 in C.C.No.227L of 2Ol9 on the file of principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, are set aside.

13. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL AS IS ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l.ThePrincipalJuniorCivilJudge-cum-VlllAddl.MetropolitanMagistrate' Cyberabad, KukatPallY.

2. The Station House O*icer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad District' i. r*o ccs to the public prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri T.S. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Jella Srikanth, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies kam +t HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 ORDER CRLP.No.4751 of 2019 /,,o /i.t 11) ,'1 --a \6- S f.1 t-s 0 7 [Pt 2025 r: r-;,. l -\-;'_. ,( ( v i:. ^< ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION a.l l^(