The High Court · 2025

Smt. Garlapati Nagavalli, , Wo G. Ram Mohan, Aged about 46 years, Occ.. House wife, R/o H.No.14l102, Old Malahar Sahara Estates, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State-68 Petition under Section 437143814391482 of Ct.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.1876/2022 on the file of the Court of the lll AJCJ cum lll AMM, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar. ,..RESPONDENTS r$. l.A. NO: 2OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC No. 187612021 on the file of the Court of the lll AJC.I cum lll ANIIt/, R.R. Disrict. at L.B. Nagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KONDA SRINIVAS, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. E GANESH, Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri. M NAVEEN. KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Criminal Petition No .6690oF 2023 ORDER: This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P'C, is ltled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos'2 to 7 in c.c.No. 1876 0f 2022 0n the hle of the court of the III Additionat Junior civil Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961' Heard, Sri Konda Srinivas, learned counscl for the petitioners' Sri 2 E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l-State and Sri M.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3Thegravamenoftheallegationslevelledagainstthepetitionersare that the marriage of responden t No.2 / de facto cornplainant was performed with accused No.1 on 15.11.2OO2 at Warangal and at the time of marriage on demand, the parents of respondent No 2 gave dowry, gold and household articles, apart from bearing the marriage expenditure. After the marriage, she joined the conjugal society of accused No'l and they were blessed with two children. At the instigation of the petitioners, accused No.1 used to harass her and beat her without any reason and the petitioners are also used to pick up quarrels with her for petty reasons and they used to harass her with humiliating and insulting words' Hence, : t I I ! I I I I i I I I I I L ,I on the complaint given by respondent No.2 herein, the present criminal law was set into motion 4 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioncrs are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case only to dictate the terms in the civil suit instituted by the husband of respondent No.2, who is accused No.l, uide O.S.No.792 of 2O2l on the ltle of the Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at Hayathnagar, for partition and separate possession. He further submitted that therc are property disputes between accused No.1 and the petitioners prior to hling of the criminal compiaint and at the instance of accused No.1, only to harass the petitioners and cause hardship to them, respondent No.2 has foisted the false case against the petitioners without attributing any specific overt acts of the petitioners. He further submitted that respondent No.2 and accused No.2 are leading their lives happily. Therefore, prays this Court to quash proceedings pending against the petitioners. 5 Per contra, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that after completion of investigation, police have laid the charge sheet and the trial is under progress and that the truth or otherwise would be revealed only after full-fledged trial. 6 Respondent No.2 has hled the counter and reiterated the complaint contents. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted respondent No.2 was harassed by the petitioners and accused No. 1 and she has .1 undergone mental trauma due to the acts of the petitioners. Therefore, prays this Court to dismiss this petition. 7 8 The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also clear from the record that the husband of respondent No.2 (accused No. 1) instituted suit before the Civil Court at Hayathnagar for partition and separate possession in the year 2021. Thereafter, it seems that at the instance of accused No.1, to settle their personal goals against the petitioners, respondent No.2 has lodged the police report against the peLilioners and accused No. I in Lhe year 2022. 9 While considering the present matter in which offence is registered under Section 498-A of IPC, it will be relevant to consider whether allegations raised by respondent No.2 satislied the pre-requisite required under the provisions of law. 10 In the present case, from the allegations of the hrst information report, it is clear that respondent No.2 is not subjected to such cruelty to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Furthermore, she has not specifically made any allegations against the petitioners nor stated what kind of harassment was caused to her at their hands. Ali the allegations against the family members of accused No. 1 are of vague and omnibus in nature. As such, prima facie, the allegations levelttd,against the family members do not attract Section 498-A of IPC. IL ,.\ ,t':l: \ In support of above reasoning it would be relevant to refer the law 11 ,:.:: laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in some of the cases, namely Preeti Gupta u, State of Jharkhandl, Geeta Mehrota and another v. Stote of U.P. and others2, Antesh Kumar u. Sto,te oJ Bihar3, Rrrjesh Sho,rma a. Sta,te of U.F, and Kahkoshan Kusho,d a. State of Bihars, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again observed that "incorporation of Section 498-4. of IPC was with an aim of preventing cruelty committed upon a women by her husband and her in- laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, malrimonial litigation in the country has increased significantly and there is a greater dis-affection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, mcre than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-A of IPC as an instrument to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives." lt is further observed that "this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A of IPC and the incrcased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputcs, without analyzing the long term ramihcations o[ a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgment that false implication by way of general, omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court, by way r (2o10) 2 (2O t2) 3 (2Ot4) ,' (2018) t -e l2o22l 7 SCC 667 r0 scc 741 8 SCC 273 t o scc 472 6 SCC 599 I i I \ I , ; I I I I I I I I I I i 5 of its judgments, has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them." 12 In the light of observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court perused the hrst information report in question and found that the allegations made against the petitioners are vague and general. The allegations levelled against the petitioners do not make out the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. 13 It is clear from record that there are no allegations against family members of the husband that they have threatened with any injury to respondent No.2 or her reputation, therefore, no offence is made out under Section 506 of the IPC against them. Further, there is specihc demand of dowry before or after the marriage from respondent No.2 or from her parents, therefore, no offence is made out under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 14 In the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be allowed to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 5O6 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and hence the same are liable to be quashed. 15 In the result, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7 herein in C.C.No. i876 of 2022 on the hle of the Court of the III Additional Junior L 6 ' :..1:, Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t\r1 SECT{ON OFFICER To,

1. The lll AJCJ cum lll AMIvl, R R District at L B Nagar 2. The V Addl Metrpolitan Magistrate at L B Nagar' Cyberabad' 3. The Station House Officer, Saroornagar W P S'' Rachakonda 4. One CC to SRl. KONDA SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 6. One CC to SRl. M NAVEEN KUMAR Advocate [OPUCI 7. Two CD CoPies MKN/gh I l I . l I I i I I I I I a t I I I .)?. 514 13 nlJEm $( z a + .. i;i r-) (J t c '9 * HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 ORDER CRLP.No.6690 ot 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED /a 4 ,4- t 3/7 // ,