The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P C praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.3871 of 2022 on the file of the I AiCJ-cum-V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-lvlalkajgiri District, Uppal. t.A. No :'l OF 2024 petition under section 482 o'f Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pieared to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.3871 ot 2022 on the file of the I RLCJ-cum-v Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal, including appearance of the petitioners, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Gror-rnCs of Criminal Petiticn and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SRINIVAS EtulANl, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, the Addiiional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the ResPondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER l THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7552 of 202t4 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 <'t'f Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3871 of 2022 pending on the fire of the learned V Additional fi/letropolitan [/lagistrate at tVledchal-tVlalkajgiri District, Uppal (for short 'trial Court'). The offences alleged agairst the petitioner- accused No.1 are under Sections 420,417,498-4 anc 1106 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short'the Act'), whereas ther offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.3 are under Sections 498-4 and 506 of IPC

2. Heard Mr. Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for tire petitioners and lt4r. IVI.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional F,ublic Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.'1-State. lnspite of service c,f notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record J- The case of the prosecution in brief is that the pertitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant and pertitioner-accused No3 is his son. The nrarriage between the petitioner-:rccused No.1 and' --I \-=r5\l \, .1 2 the de facto complainant was solemnized on 02.04.2009 and they were blessed with two chitdren. Subsequenfly, in 2015, lhe de facto complainant came to know that petitioner-accused No.1 was already 'married and had four children from his first wife. ln 2016, he convinced his flrst wife and took the de facto complainant to reside with them. But, after some days, due to disputes, his first wife and children, including the petitioner-accused No.3, harassed lhe de facto complainant and drove her and her children out of the house, withholding her marriage photos and jewellery. Later, petitioner-accused No.'l arranged a separate residence for them. After few days, he started harassing her physically and mentally, accusing her of illicit relations and neglecting her and her children. ln 2019, upon the retirement of petitioner-accused No.'l , when the de facto complainant requested him to deposit some amount in the name of their daughters, he refused on the pretext that no dowry was given at the time of marriage, and harassed her.

4. lt is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes. There is an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and the de facto complainant is in the habit of filing cases by fabricating stories of marriage and cheating. All the witnesses are family members of de facto complainant and they are - 3 interested witnesses. The petitioner-accused No.1 is a relired person suffering from old age ailments. Except bald and gene'al allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thurs, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Pttblic Prosecutor contended that the petitioners herein have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with petitioner-accused No.'1 . lt is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingtly, he prayed to dismiss the petition 6 For the sake of convenience, Section 498-4 of IPC is extracted hereunder 498A. 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 punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the pur,cose of this section, 'cruelty" means-(p)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit srLicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or healrh (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(!)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlav,iut demand for any propefty or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. .-Yl ..1 4

7. ln the judgment of Sfafe of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: following categories of cases can be stated by way of ..The illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Adiile 226 or the inherent powers under Section 492 Cr.p.C. can be exercised by the High Couft either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or othenuise to secure the ends of justice, thoygh it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channetised and inftexible guidelines or rigid formutae and to i1ive an exhaustive list of myhad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First lnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and eccepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disctose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 1SS(2) of the Code, (3) Where the uncontrovefted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppott of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizabte offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 1SS(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FtR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific ' tgsz scc 1c.iy +zo , - provision in the Code or the concerned Act, ,croviding efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking v'engeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due t<t private and personal grudge.

8. ln the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana ancl others y. State of Telangana and anothef, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.18, 25, 3'l and 32 held that: "18. A bare perusal of the F/R shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appe ant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any pafticular instance of harassment. She has also nat mentione(l lhe time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore. the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

25. A mere reference to the names of family menbers in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to imptticate a the members of the husband's family when domesti: disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such genereti!;ed and sweeping accusatlons unsupported by concrete evidence or parlicularised allegations cannot form the basis fc,r criminal prosecution. Coufts must exercise caution in such t;ases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legat pn>cess and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family mentbers. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 fo 6, who are the menbers of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appe ant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they c:annot 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 of them.

31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. Stafe of ,lharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 hetd that the coutis have to be e.<tremety careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration white dealing with t zou + INSCI gi3 Yl 'i , matrimonial .cases. .The altegations of harassment by the husband's ctose retatives whohad neei tiving in ainireii ciiis and never visited . or rarely visited the ptace *nei" iii complainant _psidecl would have an entirely different complexion. The. allegations of the complainrrt ,";;;;;;.;; be scrutinized with great care and ciriiispection. 32. We, thr:9!:r9,. a.re of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.B2 of 2022 .fited by respondent io.2 was ii.,itit.i iiti ulterior motives to settte personal scorei and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appe ant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present iase at naniiaitts.iitni, "ri;;o;ii of iilustrative parameters hightighted in Bnapn tat. rnZreiirJ, the High Court, in the presint 6"r", "oi in not exercisino the powers available to it under Section 482 CrpC and lniri,ii failed to preven[ of the Coutt,s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appeilants.,, ,abuse ";;

9. ln numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with . simirar cases herd that making vague and generarised aregations during matrimonial confricts, if not scrutinized, wifi read to the misuse of regar processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke section 498-4 of the lpC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance 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 famiry members before prosecuting the husband and his family members. , 10 rn the present case, admittedry, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the de facto comprainant and petitioner-accused No'1 and there is an unexprained deray in rodging the compraint. on a perusar of the ailegations made in the FrR or charge sheet, even if they I 7 are taken on face value, no substantial and specifio allegations have been made against the petitioner-accused No.3, excr-.pt stating that he along with his mother and siblings have threatened and driven out the de facto complainant and her children out of the hor.r5s. 16. de facto complainant has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry against the petitioner-accused No 3 Hence, the petitioner-accused No.3 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial especially when there werr: no allegations of cruelty or harassment for or in relation to demand of do,rrrry against him.

11. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments referred to above, the petitioner-accused No.3 cannol be dragged into criminal prosecution and the continuation of criminal proceeclirrgs against him' amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law. Hence, the proceedings I against the petitioner-accused No.3 are liable to be quashed

12. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is parUy_allou,ed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 in c.c No 3g71 of 2022 pending on the file of the rearned V Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate at Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppat. 1 3. lnsofar as petitioner-accused No. 1 is concerned, since there are triable issues and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against him can only be decided after conducting fuil-fredged rriar, this criminar "ffi1 \l \. 1 .1 .- \ r: I Petition is dismissed. However, his appearance before the trial Court is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required, subject to the condition of petitioner-accused No.1 being represented by his counsel on every date of hearing, and in default, this order gets vacated automaticallY Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall.stand closed SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To, 1 The I AJCJ-cum-V Addl. [Vletropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgirt District. UPPaI

2. The Station House Officer. Police Station, Nacharam, Rachakonda 3. Two CCs to the PLIBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4 One CC to SRI SRINIVAS ElVlANl Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD CoPies I'I'KiSA HIGH GOURT DATED:0411112025 1 E SL: ;.>\.,'. C()I I * 17 NO! ?Iffi :,: ij .i/ ORDER CRLP.N o.7552 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED r\a,) \