The High Court · 2025

Smt. Asfia Fathima, Wo Shahid Ahmed Khadri, Age 25 yrs, Occ Household, Rl/o 16-2- 57,Flat No.401 (Rose Block), Akberbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana Presently residing at FIat No. 102, Pride Heights, H. No. 16/2/50/fu1, Akberbagh, New Malakpet, Hyderabad- 500036, Telangana. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 call for the records relating to C. C. No. 1493 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum- Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, and quash the proceedings therein against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 in C. C. No. 1493 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum- Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Rajendranagar, Cyberabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal ,Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GULAM RABBANI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy the Additionar pubric prosecutor (TG) on beharf of the Resporr rent No. and of sri Mohd. Majid Khan Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6960 OF 2024 o,IST DECEMBER,2025 Between: Ahmed Pasha Khadri . . . Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Rep. through Public Prosecutor and '1 other . .. Respondents ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1493 of 2019 on thefile of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Rajendranagar, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short'the Act')

2. Heard Sri Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Mohd. Majid Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Perused the record z

3. The case of the prosecution is that :te marriage of the respondent No.2 with the son of accused No.2 rras solemnized on

12.05.2016 incurring huge expenditure and giu ng dowry to the petitioners. After two months of her marriage, the a titude of in laws of respondent No.2 has changed and they started rarassing her and started demanding more dowry from the parents rf the complainant Later a baby girl was born to her, due to which the letitioners were not happy and demanded additional dowry of Rs.30 laki s, failing which she will not be permitted to come to her marital home. t-n 17.02.2018 when her parents and her brother went along with the :omplainant to her marital home inspite of showing any happiness they ;tarted scolding her brother and her parents as the demand made by t er in laws and her husband was not fulfilled, as such her parents took tack her. Hence the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offr: tces under Section 498-4 of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted hat the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offences and that he rever harassed the respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the father in law of the complainant. The petitioner never demanded any do,ury from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific a I rgations against the petitioner-accused No.2. The contents of the complaint ,l charge sheet do not 3 disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under section 49g_A of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of D.p.Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2, rearned counser for the petitioner reried upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Sfafe of Telangana and anotherr, wherein the Honourable Supreme court of lndia at paragraph Nos.1g, 24, 31 and32 herd that: "!t. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than ctaiming that appeiant No.1 harassed her and that appellant No,"j,.Z ti A instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or descibed any particular instance of harassmenl. She has a/so not mentioned the time, date, ptace, or manner in ryhich the atteged harassment occute,d. Therefore, the FtR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 24. lnsofar as appeilant Nos.2 fo 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of cime without any rhyme o, iu"rrrr,. i perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appettant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appettant Ni.t for demanding more dowry. /f rs a/so an admifted fact that they never resided witn tne co,ipi namely appellant No.1 and respondent No-2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and S ,""i"i together at Guntakal, Andhra pradesh. npp",i"rt Nos. 4 to 6 tive in Neltore, Bengaluru "ni'aurtu respectively. 2024 tNSC 953 I I 4 31 . Fufther, this Court in Preeti Gupta 'r i. Sfafe of Jharkhand (2010) Z SCC 667 held ,hat the courts have to be extremely carel tl and cautious in dealing with these complai ts and must take pragmatic realties into consirteration while dealing with matrimonial cas=;. The allegations of harassment by the ht;band's close relatives who had been living in ,li6srsn1 cities and never visited or rarely vi:t'ed the place where the complainant residec would have an entirely different complexi:t. The allegations of the complainant are req ired to be scrutinized with great caft and circumspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion hat the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by re:;,nndent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives c seff/e personal scores and grudges against 'z ryellant No.1 and his family members i.e., aryellant Nos 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the presenl :ase af hand falls within category (7) of ilrt'strative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Tt =refore, the High Court, in the present case, erre C in not exercising the powers available to i under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed t<t prevent abuse of the Courl's process by contin ring the criminal prosecution against the appellan s."

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 1( r the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the pet t oner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting tr rll-fledged trial by the concerned Court below and prayed to dismiss this ( )riminal Petition 5 6 A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner-accused No.2 is father in law. There are no specific instances with regard to the harassment meted out by the accused No.2. Only vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioner and no material was placed by the prosecution with regard to specific instances and being father of her husband, respondent No.2 roped him in this case and there are no specific overt acts established against the petitioner

7. 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 petitioner- accused No.2. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution.

8. 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 lwisting tactics by a wife-and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 4984 of the IPC 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 I I is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members. Hence, he cannot be 6 "--.-1 !--\ (. dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made agil rst him.

9. ln view of the facts and circumstaflc€s c'l the case including the settled principle of 'law laid down by the Honour: cle Supreme Court of lndia in the above decision, this court is of the corr ;idered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petrt oner-accused No.2 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the J roceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 are liable to be quashed

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is, allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in tl c.No.1493 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior civil Judtl )-cum-xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Rajendranagar, Cyb'-''abad, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicatior s, if any, shall stand closed To, 1 2 ,4,, ,,r"#i,t'f$T$l** //TRUE COPY// SECTI o N OFFICER 't j&',:"c,iH':t1{Jl8:ii[%TESIlfll il:iP-',',:?Yi,'H:El8,'Jll The S. H. O , Rajendranagar Police Station' Cyberac ld' Ranga Reddy District. - \

3. One CC to SRl. GULAM RABBANI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] /

5. Two CD Copies (tr ,. ) ). E 6 <) l0 Li[ m6 f ( l I I HIGH COURT JS,J \ \ DATED:01 l12t2|2i CRLP.No.6960 of 2024 CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED. ?+ \o l> t\