The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memoiandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.05 of 2022 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge-CUM-Xlll Additional Kukatpally, Cyberabad, against the petitioner Accused No.2 & 3, In the interest of Justice. I.A. NO: 1OF 2022 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 in C.C. No. 05 of 2022 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge-CUM-Xlll Additional Kukatpally, Cyberabad, pending disposal of the main 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 S.Veda Vidya Nath Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the Ms s.Madhavi, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. l, and of sri s.Ram Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5076 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6656 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lX Additional Judicial ltlagistrate of First Class at tr/edchal (previously C C.No.S o'f 2022 on the file of the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xlll Additional ttletropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad) (for short'trial Court'), arising out of Crime No.50 oI 2021 of W.P.S. l.T. Corridor, Gachibowli. The offences alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, '1961 (for short 'the Act')

2. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Srirambhatla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father and mother of accused No. 1. The de facto complainant is the father of LW-21 V.Sushma Reddy. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage of LW-2 was { d 2 performed with accused No.'1 on 24.04.2018. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. LW-2 has joined the conjugal society of accused No.1 at her matrimonial home. During her stay, the petitioners abused her stating that the marriage was not performed according to their expectations and further demanded additional dowry of Rs.25,00,000/- Subsequently, accused No.'l and LW-2 left to USA. While residing at USA, LW-2 resigned her job, as she was diagnosed with Thyroid Cancer. Then, the petitioners and accused No.1 abused her on financial matters. ln December, 2020, LW-2 and accused No.1 returned to lndia. During the said period, the petitioners insisted that the house given as dowry at the time of marriage, which was in the name of LW-2, be registered in the name of accused No.1 and also demanded additional dowry. On the instigation of petitioners, accused No. 1 went to USA, leaving LW-2 in lndia. When the de facto complainant went to the house of accused at Kompally to request them to take back LW-2, the petitioners abused him using abusive and unparliamentary language, unlawfully confined him in the house for more than three hours and physically assaulted him.

4. lt is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facfo complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between LW-2 and accused No.'l . It is contended 7, 3 that the petitioners herein are staying away from LW-2 and accused No.1 therefore there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass LW-2. The present complaint was filed in 2021, whereas, the marriage of LW-2 and accused No.'l was performed in 2018. The reason for such delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. lt is further contended that most of the witnesses are family members of de facto complainant and they are interested witnesses. lt ls'also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. This Court, by order, dated 21 .09.2024 has quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.4 to 6 in the crime, in Criminal Petition Nos.90l3 and 9020 of 2023. Since the petitioners herein also stands on the same footing, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondenl as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in one tone contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed LW-2 after her marriage with 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. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition 4

6. For the sake of convenience, section 4gg-A of rpc is extracted hereunder \ 498A. Husband or relative of subjecting her to cruelty.- husband of a woman Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruetty sha be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-(p)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, timb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(p)harass/renl of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any untavvfut demand for any propefty or valuable security or is on account of faiture by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

7. ln the judgment of Sfate of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Afticte 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 Courl or otherwise to.secure the ends of justice, though it may n9t be possib/e to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflex'ibie guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad 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 accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make ouf a case accused; -against (2) Where the allegations in the First tnformation Repoi and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.t.R. do not disctose a..cognizabl.e offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code bxcept inder an ' lq92 scc (cri) 426* - 1 5 order of a Magistrate within the puNiew of Section 1 55(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontrovefted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case agarnsl the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code: (5) Where the allegations madd in the FIR 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 engrafred 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 provision in the C6de or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the gievance of the aggrieved parly, (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 vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

8. ln the judgmenl of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anothef, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.31 and 32 held that "31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entiely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. '2024 tNSC 953 r' '1 i 6

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FtR No.82 of 2022 fited by respondent No.2 was inititea witn ulterio.r motives lo self/e personal scores and grudges against aDpellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appblai frtos.Z to A herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category ?) illystratr te parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Thiereifore, 9.f the High Court, in the present case, erred ii not exercising the powers available to it under Section 4g2 CrpC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

9. ln numerous cases, the Hon'bre supreme court, whire dearing with similar cases held that 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 twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke section 498-4 of the IPC against the husband and his famiry in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable 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. ln the present case, admittedry, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between LW-2 and accused No.1. A perusar of the record would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners herein, except stating that they have instigated accused No.'r in harassing LW-2. Not even a singre instance of harassment or cruerty or demand of dowry had been referred against the petitioners. lt is also an admitted fact that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 7 and 3, who are the parents of accused No.'l , are staying away from LW-2 and accused No.1 . Therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass LW-2. The present complaint was filed in2021, whereas, I the marriage of LW-2 and accused No.1 was performed in 2018. The reason for such delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. lf really there was harassment as alleged in the complaint, the de facto complainant or LW-2 would have approached the Police much earlier. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial especially when there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment for or in relation to demand of dowry against them 11- For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments referred to above, the petitioners cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law. Hence, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. '12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.6656 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at tVledchal (previously C.C.No.S of 2022 on the file of the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad). 8 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPYII ,$?,#REB,!?Hl,_. ECTION OFFICER ;ffg*'**r,#,'r,ffi ;,"#H:*,*i,,,,,",** i ff ff i:ffi:fli JJ..,.? Xjl*:fs,i"At sia,e ropUcJ *uu,or* w HIGH COURT DATED:1 610712025 ORDER CRLP.No.5076 of 2022 1 HE STA tT ? 25ittl?s6 -k l) I \ '7 _Z ()j -{.. * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @tnlr 2