The High Court · 2025

2. Smt.Dadi Venkata Laxmi Rajyam, Wo Dadi Subba, Aged about 56 Years, Occ.House Wife. Both are resident of D.No.1-147, Santha Bazar, Peravali Village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur Dist -- ..Petitioners/Accused No. 2 & 3 AND 1 2 State of Telangana, rep by its Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana. Smt.Kota Shakuntala, Wo D.Taraka Laxmi Narayana Aged about 35 Years' Occ. Employee, Flat No.101 , Sai Chaitanya Residency, Near Vivekanada Nagar Colony Saptagiri Colony, Kukatpally ...Respondents/Defacto-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 quash the cc. No. 1990 of 2O21 on the file of Principal Junior civil ludge crm vllt Addl.Metropolitian tr4agistrate, cyberabad at Kukatp^ally sublequently on 01l0Gt2O22 in view recent district bifercaution the same CC is transferred t'o tne xtt Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri dist at Kukatpally. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 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 grant stay of all further Proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner ii CC t.'to.tggo of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Vlll Addl.Metropolitian Magistrate, cyberabad at Kukatpally subsequently on 01lO6t2O22 in view recent district bifercaution the same CC is transferred to the xll Additional Metroplotian Magistrate, tvledchal-Malkajgiri dist at Kukatpally. This Petition ;oming on for hearing, upon perusing the [r/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.S.R.lvl.V. PRASAD SANAKA Advocate for the petitioner and the Smt. S. Madhavi Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMI NAL PETITI ON No.52 95 ot 2022 ORD ER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in (old C C.No 1990 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Vlll Additional Metropolitan It/lagistrate, Kukatpally) C.C'No 8600 of 2022 on the file of Xll Additional tMetropolitan lVlagistrate, Medchal-IVlalkajgiri District at Kukatpally The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act')'

02. Heard Sri V.S.R'VI V Prasad Sanaka' learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos'2 and 3 and Smt.S.t\4adhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.Thereisnorepresentationonbehalfoftherespondent No.2. Perused the record'

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No l with the respondent No 2 was Ii 2 solemnized about twelve years ago. The accusec: No,.1 with the instigation of the accused Nos.2 and 3 starteo harassing her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry from her parents. Later they were blessed with a baby girl, but even then, the accused No. 1 did not mend his behavior. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present cas;e for the offences under Sections 4gg_A of lpC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowlr Prohibition Act. 04 L.earned counsel for petitioners submilted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the responderrt No.2. Respondent No.2 herself deserted her husband and it is not about the harassment made by the petitioners ;rnd her husband. The petitioners are senior citizens and suffering with old age ailments. The petitioner_accused No.::t is the father, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the mother of the :,rccused No.1 and they are residing separately from the petrtioner_erccused No.1 and respondent No 2. The petitioners_accused Nos.il and 3 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent Nr.r.2 and the accused Nc.1. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her pa rents. There are no specific i 1 3 allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-4 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anothe/ wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph Nos.18, 25 &31 held that: "18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant 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 harassmenf. She has a/so not mentioned the 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 members 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 implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic dlsputes arlse out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by ' AtR zo25 SuPREwE couRT 173 4 concrete evidence or particularised allegation:: cannol form lhe basls for criminal prosJcution Cou rts must exercise caution in such cases lc, prevent misuse of legal provisions and the lega, proces.s and avoid unnecessary harassment ot innocent family members. ln the presenl case appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appeltant No 1 have been hving in different cities and have not resided in the matrintonial house of appeilant No.1 and respo|clent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of tne Ui in the absence of specific altegations *"a" ug,uinrt each of them. jl . Fuiher, this Couft in preeti Gupta vs. State o/ Jharkhand (2010) I SCC 662 hetd that the courts h.ave to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must tak:e pragmatrc realties into consideration while cleating with ntatrimonial cases. The altegations ; harassrnent by the husband,s c/ose relatives whro had been tiving in different cities and never visitecl or rarel,v visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different comple>'icn The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care ancl circu msp-^ction. "

05. Learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations agairst the petitioners ano the truth or othenarise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition. 1 5

06. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint discloses that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 were living separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing separately from the accused No''l and respondent No.2.

07. 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 petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3' Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution.

08. IVlaking vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use oI arm twisting 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 is any prima facie case against the husband and i I I 5 (, his family nrembers before prosecuting the husbard and his family members Hence, the petitioners_accused Ncs.2 and 3 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence r:f specific allegations .nade against each of them

09. ln case including vrew of the facts and circumstancers of the the settled principle of law laid dovr,n by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above ,lecision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cr:ntlnuation of the proceedings against the petitioners_accuseJ Nos 2 and 3 amounts to abuse of process of iaw, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.2 ard 3 are liable to be quashed '10. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allow,ed and the proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.,Z and 3 in (old C C No 1990 of 2021 on the file of the ,earned Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Vlll Additional l\4etropolitan IVagistrate, Kukatpally) C.C.No.8600 of 2O22on the file of Xll Additional I\,4etropolitan [/lagistrate, tVedchal_lValkajgiri District at Kukatpally, are hereby quashed. 7 Asase quel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed ,ITRUE COPY" SD,- N. S UTY REG RI HARI ISTRAR DEP ECTION OFFICER ', ;:'l: :::::il:'"# 11?*";Xl'o'"n'' ; Hr{,,*'.',W;'}b'?iii-r iif".J3,itffi ,,[J]3131"J,:,1,:?i:n'""i"'JT'ff : ffitr"":'i-"o.VR;n," i r*o CD CoPtes D1-/gh vv 'ANAKA' PRA.AD Advocate toPucl \ \ i I a I i I I . l;-'- r^ ._ ) r4f 1- ( -- 2l APH 2[6 i':: r'14 1 -.9r i;.i"r i;/' +l' , HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 ORDER CRLP.No.5295 of 2O22 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION VP {2t" 2-\