The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 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 pursuant to the CC No. 9437 of 2024 on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan IVlagistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad including appearance of the petitioners, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition, in the interest of Justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V Seetharama Avadhani, Advocate for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 . The Court made the following: ORDER / (0 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7568 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER 23.12.2025 Between: 1. Emani Madl.ravi and other. The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor & other. And ORDER: .. petltloners .. rr--spondents This Criminal Petition is lrled with thc lollowing prayer "...to quash the proceedings in CC No.9437 ot 2024 on the file of XIII Addl. Chief Mctropolitan Magistrate Nampally, Hyderabad against the Petitioners/Accused Nos,6 artd 7 herein and pass such other order or orders..."

2. Heard Mr. V Seetharama Avadhani, lcarned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Ms. Palai Subhashree Priyadarshani, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 in C.C.No.9437 ol 2024. Grievance/ complain t/ allegation against pelitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 is that petitioner No.2, respondent No.2's father-in-law's iirst brother, and petitioner No. 1, wife of father-in-law's first brother, had tortured respondent I I I 2 Cdp N6.?568 of2025 JAK,] \ \ No.2 by keeping wrong relationship between her and her father. Except this allegation, there is no other allegation in the entire complaint, complaint runs into six pages.

4. [t is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners are Singapore citizens and are residents of Singapore. That there are no specihc instances of any overt acts nor any specific allegations in the entire complaint to attract the offence(s) uncler Sections 498A and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 186 I (for short 'IPCJ and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that it is only in the rarest of rare cases that the Court should exercise its power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') to quash the proceedings. Rcliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Muskrrn u. Ishaan Khan (Satanfy4 & otherst to buttress the contention that the present set of facts demonstrates that the casc is a I'it case for trial. Issues are triable in nature, hence, ncl indulgencc be shown.

6. I.carnecl c()unscl frrr respondent No.2 reiterated tht: contentions zrdvanced by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and submitted that petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 have kept a , Crlp No 7t66 of2025 l?1l(.1 respondent No.2 and her father in a wrong relationship and threatened not to have kids and further did not allow her to participate in the pooja and other function along with her husband are suffice to attract the offences. That this Court cannot exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to grant any relief in the wake of the allegations in the complaint.

7. Before venturing any further, it is tritc to extract the relevant sections. Section 4984 of I.P.C is as follows "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, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punishecl with imprisonment for a term which may exlend to three years and shall also be liable to hne. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (al any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause Brave injury or danger to tife, Iimb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing lrer or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable seclrdty or is on accounl of failurc by hcr or anv pcrson related to her to meet such demard.".

8. Scction 5O6 ol I.P.C is as follows: "Punishment for criminal intimidation - Whocver commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with finc, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. Arrd if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause thc destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death ' 2025 rNSC t287 4 Crlp No.7568 of202 5 JAK,J \ \ or limprisonment for lifel, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment o either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with hne, or lvith both."

9. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is as follows: "4. Penalty for demandlng dowry - If any pr:rson demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years aIId with hne which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provkled that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment lor a term of less than six months.' I O. 'lo makt: out the alleged offences, the ingredients of Sections have to be spelled out in the complaint, though, not necessarily in detail. On a perusal of the contents of Sections, it is apparent that the ingredients of the Sections have not been spelled out in the complaint, cven remotely. On a plain reading, the contents do not reflect any ingredients to draw a pima facie case againsl peti tioners-accused Nos.6 and 7.In the absence of ingredients spelled out in the complaint, even remotely, no offences can be said to have been made out in the present case. Various allegations have been levelled in complaint; but, none of the allegations are directed or pointed towards petitioners, no specilic allegation of any overt act being committed by petitioners or n 5 Crlp.No 7566 ofl0lt JAK,,] meting out of any physical harassment or any other harassment is complained of. I 1. The relevant portion of the complaint against the petitioners as reflected in the complaint is as follows: "My father-in-law's first own brother and his wife tortured me by keeping wrong relationship betwecn me and my father. My father-in-law's second own brother and his wife would threaten me not to have kids till they have kids and Emani Padma threatened me not to have kids and would always separate me from husband in any pooja or family function."

12. A statement that petitioners have kept a wrong relation between the complainant and her father cannot be said to at( ract the offences. The statements that petitioners separated her husband in pooja and family function also do not invite the wrath of the Sections. No details of any threatening made are spelled out, there are no speci{ic allegations.

13. [t is trite to extract the relevant portion o[ the Hon'ble Apcx Court's judgment in Dora Lakshmt Naragana dnd others v. State of Telangdna and anotherz, which is as follows:- "27 . A mere refe rence to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's r (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 735 6 Crtp.No.7568 of2025 JAK,J Al \ family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized a[egations (--annot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent rnisuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. [n the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant I have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house o[ Appellant I and Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each ol them."

14. On a perusal of contents of the judgment of the Hontrle Apex Court, it is apparent that generalized allegations cannot form the basis lor proceedings. Specific allegations pointing towards the involvement of the accused are not forthcoming in the complaint nor in the charge sheet making out a prima facie case. The complaint should spell out briefly the details attracting the ingredients of Sections alleged. In the absence of such specific allegations, on the basis of generalized statements, the Courts cannot mulch the petitioners to undergo the rigmarole of criminal proceedings.

15. In the prt:sent case, no specific allegations are forthcoming to at least prima facie attract the ingredients of sections. In the absence of any such allegations made out on the face of it as read 1 Crlp No 756E of:025 JAKJ from the complaint, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.9437 of 2024, if allowed to remain, would be an abuse of process o[ law.

16. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of responderrt No.2 and petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 have expressed that they intend to compromise and settle the entire issue. The golden lining ol Section 482 Cr.P.C is embedded in the words "interest of justice.' This aspect of interest of justice has to be given primacy in the present facts of the case, as respondent No.2 is young, aged 27 years, that if all the parties to ihe proceedings intend to come to a table and settle the issues amicably, it would be appreciatcd by this Court and would set free respondent No.2 to walk her own life. With a lond hope, this Court requests ail the parties to settle the issue amicably.

17. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a number of judgments, has held that if thc parties are willing to compromise in a matrimonial issue, the Court should pcrmit such compromise in the larger interest oi all the parties and in the interest of justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Bhc,ra.thi Deui and qnother a. State of Telangana and c;nothe{, considering the judgment of Gian Singh u. State of '(2024) to scc 384 8 C.lp No 7568 of2025 JAK,J a:l Punjab and anothera and other catena ofjudgments, held that if parties are willing to compromise in matrimonial matters, where offences under Section 498A and Dowry Prohibition , Act are alleged, the Courts can quash proceedings taking note of the compromise/ settlement arrived at between the offender and the victim.

18. Both the counsels expressed their willingness on instructions from thcir clients that they would like to compromise the entire issue amicably. With a lond hope, this Court permits all the parties to arrive at a settlement. The parties are at liberty to place the compromise deed belore the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.

19. As hetcl supra, the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners-accused Nos.6r and 7. Proceedings in C.C.No.9437 of 2024 on the file of XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally, Hyderabacl, qua the petitioners are liable to be quashed and are accordirrgly quashed. To the extent of petitioners, the criminal petition is allowed.

20. In respect of the request made for settlement, the same is pcrmitted. '(2oll) lo scc 3o.t .-, , 9 Crlp No.?568 of202t JAK.J 21 . With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pcnding, if any, shall stand clriscd. SD/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,/ //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER \ To

1. The Xlll Additional Chief lVletropolitan [Vlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, WPS, EAST ZONE, Hyderabad City.

3. One CC to SRl. V Seetharama Avadhani Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies Ba/PSL J W HIGH COURT DATED: 2311212025 ( I ORDER CRLP.No.7568 of 2025 tHE S 3 1 JAN lntc )- t * THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. @ .tLb b\ \