The High Court · 2025

Smt. J. Lavanya, W/o Dharani Sai Ram, Aged about 40 years, Occ. House wife, R/o H.No.3-84, Narsingi, Rajendra Nagar lt4andal, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COM PLAINANT Petition under Sectron 482 oI 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 proceedings in C.C. No. 641 1 of 2022 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- lX Addl. tvletropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, At Kukatpally. I.A. NO: 1OF 2024 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 and further proceedings in C.C. No. 641 1 of 2022 on the file of lAddl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- lX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, At Kukatpally including appearance of the Petitioners /Accused no. 1 to 4, Pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume rts of Sri HARINADH NIDAIVANURI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI t\,4 RAI'IAiIHANDRA REDDY, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent \,r.1 and of Sri H SUDHAKAR RAO, Advocate for thc Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8665 ot 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos 1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C C No 6411 of 2022 on the file of I Addrtional Junior Civil Judge- cum-lX Additional lVletropolitan lVlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under section 498-,A, 494 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibrtron Act (for short'The Act') 2 Heard lVIr.N.Hari Nadh, learned counsel for the petitioners- accused Nos.'1 to 4, IVr.H.Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No 2 and [/lr [i/l Ramachandra Reddy learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Perused the record 3 ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is the father in law, accused No.3 ts the sister in law and accused No.4 is the 2nd wife of accused No.1 as per charge sheet. The marriage of the de facfo complainant with accused No.1 was performed on 09.12.2010 by giving dowry of Rs 7,50,000/- cash, 10 tulas of gold, 30 tulas of silver and also 2 costly home applrances and furniture worth of Rs 4 00,000/- by incurring an expendrture of Rs i5 0O 000i- for marriage as per the demands of her husband and in laws After marriage she loined her husband for leading con.lugal life and her husband used to behave cruelly and abused her in filthy language and all her rn laws harassed her mentally and physically demandirg her to bring additional dowry. Even when she was pregnant she r,r,as forced to eat stale food and even after birth of a boy there was ,o change in the attitude and behavior of her husband and in raw:; but coerced her to comply therr additional dowry demands. In pursuance of their malefic intentions her husband filed a divorce case against her by makrng all false and baseless allegations. the appeal of which is pending before this Court By suppressing the fact that she preferred an appear before this courl against the orders of the trial court, wherein the matter did not attain finarity, ilrer petitroners have performed another marriage to her husband with another woman, who is accused No 4 herein. Hence, the respondent No 2 filed the present case for the offences under Sectionr; 49g-A, 494 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act. 4 It is contended by the rearned counsel for petitioners; that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between her and accused No.1. The present complaint was lodged by the de faclo complainant after nine years of her marriage with accused No.1. The i-eason for such delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained The accused and the de facto complainant were granted divorce on 04.01 .2018 vide FCOP No.6B3 of 2012 by the Family court Judge, L B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the complainant preferred an appeal before this court and this Court suspended the operation of said order on 09.04.2018 and it was further extended on 02 05 2018 pending orders. No notice was issued to the accused No 1 and he rs unaware of the suspension of the operation of the divorce order The petitioners herein are staying away from lhe de facto complainant and accused No.1 Except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de faclo complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. 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, he prayed to dismiss the petition 4 "?t're'?'; .!r=. r :-Y' :.::iil.rl,:..,i: ._.

6. For the sake of corvcniencc. Scction.19.1 of IPC anc'l Sc,,tiou 198 ol'Cr.P.C al'e exlracled hererrnder - 49,1. )lurr_ring tguin lurirtg lifi,titttt,of hnhrrtrl or t' ifc. - Whoever, having a husband or ,,vrfc ltvtng ntarries in any case 'n which such marriage is void by reason of its taktng place dttring the life cf sut:tt ltusband or wife, shall be punrshed with rntprisonnefi of either descriptron fat . tein which may extend to seven years. and sha// a/so be ltable to ftt)e ( E..,.€'pttort)-Thrs secllon does not extend ta any person whose ntarnage wtth strch lt tsband or vttfe has been declared void by a Court of con]petenl lLttisdtctron. nor to a t! person who contracts a marriage during the life of a formcr husband or wtfe. if sL.,:h husband or wife, at the time of the subsegr/erl marnage. shall have been conttnually absent from such person for the space of seven years. and shall not havc been heard of by sLtch person as being alive within that time provrded the perstr, contractitlg such subsequent marriage shall. bcfore such narriage takes plar:c. inform the person with whom such marriage rs cantracted of the real slale of ia,-'fs so far as the same are within his or her knowledge

198. Prosecution for offences against marriage.- (1) No Cot,'n shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence: Provided thal (a) where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or /s an i(l'al or a lunatic, or is from slckness or infirmity unable to make a complairit, or is t. ',vontan who. according to the local cusioms and manners. ought not to be comp.lled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court. nake ,t cornplarnl on his or her behalf; (b) where such person is the husband and he is seNtng in any ol the Armed Forces of the Union under conditions which are ceftified by hi:; C.ommandng Officer as precluding him from obtaining leave of absence to enable t)i to rnake a complaint in person, some other persan authorised by the husband n accordance with the provisions of sub-secllon (4) may make a cotnplant on his l:ehalf: (c) there the person aggrieved by an offence punishable uncler [Secton 494 or section 495) of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) ts the wife, conipiaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, s/Stet son or daughter ot )'/ her father's or mother's brother or sister [,or, with the leave of the Cour7, by any rtther person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.l 5

7. Section 494 of IPC deals with bigamy. The provision under Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C set out the prohibition for the Court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of lPC. The cognizance, however, can be taken only if the complaint is made by some person aggrieved of the offence

8. ln the instant case, having gone through the record, it clearly depicts that no complaint was made by the de facto complainant before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the offence under Section 494 of IPC On the other hand, she has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Police for investigation and the same is not maintainable in view of the bar enshrined in Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C The Police, after concluding investigation have filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the same was taken cognizance by the learned [Vlagistrate without perusrng the mandate under Section 198(1 ) of Cr.P.C. and issued process to the accused, which is contrary to law. However, Section 494 of IPC is not applicable to the petitioners herein, as they are not parties to the alleged second marriage

9. For better ad.judication of the casc. Section 498-4 ol IPC is also extracted hereunder:

4984. Ilusband or relatite of husbarul of a woman suhjcuing her lo cruelt!.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pLtnished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to frne. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-@)any wilful conduct which is of such a 6 trI; '.,i t-r. nature as is likely to drive the woman to connti[ suicide or to cause gtave in]ury ar danger to life, limb or health (whetha mental or physical) o,' lhe uvomart orL)harassment of the woman where such haiassnient is wtth a vievr to coercng her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for att/ ptopefty or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related lo her to meet such demand

10. ln the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows. The following categones of cases can be stated by way af illustratton wherein the extraordinary power under Arlicle 226 or the inherent p:twer:; rtnder Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exerased by Lhe Hgh CourT etther to pto'lent abttse o[ fhe process of any CourT or otherwise to secure )e ends of juslice ihaugh tt nay not be possible to lay down any precise clearly defirted a,ti.t sLiffictenlly channelised and inflexible guidelines or rtgrd formulae and to gtve an exhartstive list of myriad klnds ofcases wherein such power should be exercisetr (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 out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First lnformation Reporl and other tnlt2nals, if any accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence )ustifving an investigatiou by police officers under Sectiott 156(1) of the Cade excr)pi under an order of a Magtstrate within the puNiew of Section 155(2) of le Co(id (3) Where the uncontrovefted allegatiorts nade tn the FtR or coniDlatnt and the evidence collected in supporT of the same do not disclose the com,ntssion of any offence and make out a case against the accused (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constiute a cognizabte offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation ts pernttl:tl by a polce officer without an order of a Magistrate as canlemplated under Sei.:ii)n 155(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are s,t absurd atrcl inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person ca t:ver reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedrtg againsl ihe accrlsed. (6) Where there is an express /egal bar engrafted in any of the pntvrsions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is in-;tttuted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficaaous tedress for the grievance of the aggrieved pafty; ' 1992 scc (cri) 426 L l (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.

11. ln the judgmenl of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anothey', the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.1B, 21 ,25,29,31 and 32 held that: "18. A bare perusal of the FIR s/roivs lhal the allegations ntade by respondent No.2 are vague and ontnibus. Otlter than clainting hat appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellanl Nos 2 to 6 instigatecl him to do so respondent No 2 has not provided arry speafrc detatls or descnbed arty partcular instance of harassrnenl. She has also nol nenliot)ed the ttme. date. place or ttanner in which the alleged harasstnent occurred Therefore the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 21 . Given the facts of lhls case and h view of the lrnng and conlext of the FlR, we find that respondeDl No 2 left lhe ntatrimonial ltouse on 03.10 2021 after quarrellng with appellant No 1 n,ilt respect to her nteractons wrth a third person in their marriage. Later she carne back to her matnntortial ltous.^ assuring to have a cordial relationship with appellant No.1 However she agan left the matrimonial house. When appellant No 7 lssued a legal notice seekrtg divorce on 1312.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01 02.2022 by respondent No.2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that lhe FIR filed by respondent No.Z is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaltatory measLtre intended to settle scores with appellant No.1 and his family members.

25. A mere reference lo the natnes of fantily rnenbers tt a crininal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute without spectfrc allegalotls irtdrcating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud lt is a well-recognised fact borne out of judicial expenence, that there is often a [endency to irrtplrcate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disptrles anse out of a matrimonial discord. Such getteraltsed attd sweeping accr,/saro/rs ttrrsuppofted by concrete evidence or pafticulansed allegations cannot fornt the basls for criminal prosecution. Coufts must exerdse caution rrt such cases to prevent mtsuse of legal provisions and the leaal process a/rd avoid unnecessaty harassnent of innocent famity members. ln the present case, appellant Nos 2 to 6, wlto are the members of the f amily of appellant No.1 have been living in different cilies ancl have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and resportdent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged nto criminal prosecLrttott and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law tn the absence of speciftc allegattons made against each of them. ' zoza rrusc 9s1- ;iii .?ir: .- 29 We are nal. fot a ntonenl slating that any wornan rv/; r /r;,,-s suffered cruelty in lerms of whal l)as been contetnplated under Sectloir 498.4 of the IPC should retnain silent and forbear hersel[ from making a contpiarnt ( t fi]ttiattng anv criminal proceeding. Tltat ts not the intentioti af our aforesaid ob..;r:r v'alron.s bul rve should not etrcourage a case lrke as in the present one, where as a :ctLttttcrblast to the pelition for dissolLtian of ntarnage sought by the firs[ appellatrl ttL,sltartcl of the socorrd rr:spordent lteretn a conlplartt tutder Sectton 49BA af the tl (, is ladged by the lattu ln fact. the tnseion of lhe satd proviston /s /riral)l r )itlt, fot 'lte loleclot) of a wontan ,vlto is sublected to cruelty in tl)e tt)ati it tcl ttal ltantc pnmarily clue to an unlavy[Ltl tlernand for any properTy or valuablt: str.LtTtiy trt lhe form of dowry However. sometimes il is nllsused as in the presenl r: t:r: 31 Fudher. this Court tn Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand | .?010) 7 SCC 667 held that the coutls have to be extremely careful and cautiotts t) dca!nq \,/ttl) lltese conplaints ard /Irr/sl takc pragntalrc rcalties into consderat t)l \yh e dealtDg with rna tnrcnial cases fhe allegations of harassment by the l\.sDan(/ .s c/ose relatives who had been livrlg rrt different cities and never vtstecl a, ) at elv vtslecl the place where the complainanl resided woLtld have ai en'tt,:ly :1ifferetnl contplexictn The allegattons of the complainant are required to br, s':rLtltni.:ecl vitlt great carc and circunspeclDn 32 We. therefore. are af the optnton that the irnpugnec! FIR t! t 82 of 2022 ftled by t espondent No 2 was inttnted with ulterior mottves ta : t::llc l)ersonal scores and grudges agatnst appellanl No.1 and his family mentbers t t.- appeliar',i Nos 2 lo 6 herein. Hence. the preserl case at hand falls wlhirt cateqory (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhalan Lal. Therefore, the HKltt )ourt. ut thc present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it ttrrth't Scciton 482 CtPC and thereby failed ta prevent abuse of the Courl's procc.ss lty r:onltnttittg llte crintinal prosecution against the appellants."

12. ln numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ,ruhile dealing with similar cases held that making vague and generalisec allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the mrsuse of leoal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twistrrrg tacttcs by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invo[,.e Section 498-,4 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Ccr_rrts are bound to 9 ensure whether there is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members

13. ln the present case, admittedly, there rs no dispute with regard to the marnage between the de facto complainant and accused No.'1 . On a bare perusal of the allegations made in the FIR or charge sheet, even if they are taken on face value, no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners. De facto complainant filed the present case on 02 07.2019 i.e, after obtaining of divorce upon dissolution petition filed by accused No 1 on 04.01 .2018 vide F C O P No OB3 of 2Ol2 Though she filed an appeal on the divorce order, no notice was served on the petttioner- accused No. 1, which shows that the present case is filed only to hassle the petitioners. Apparently as per record the petitioners and de facto complainant are residing separately. Fufther the present complaint was lodged by the de laclo complainant against the accused after nine years of her marriage with accused No.1 . lf really there was harassment she would have lodged the complaint much earlier. Only as the accused No.1 obtained divorce and dissolved the marriage, with a view to harass the petitioners this case is filed by the de faclo complainant. Hence, rt appears that the present complaint was maliciously instituted by the de faclo complainant against the petitioners herein with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge, in view of matrimonial disputes between her and accused No.1 . ../ 10

14.FortheforegoingdiscussionandinVieWofthelavilaiddownbythe Hon'ble Supreme court in the aforesaid iudgements. the p etitioners-accused Nos'lto4cannotbeputtotheordealoftrialandtheoroceedingsagainst them are liable to be quashed

15. Accordingly, this criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petrtioners-accused Nos l to 4 in c.c No.641"t of 2022 pending on the file of I Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-lX Adclitional l\,4etropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stend closed Sd/- .1-. SRINIVASA REDDY \sstsrnrur REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ t sEcnoN oFFtcER To, 1 ThelAddl.JuniorCivilJudge-Cum.lXAddl.Metropolitan|\4agistrate'Ranga Reddy District, At KukatPallY. The V Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Xlll Additional Metropolitan N4agistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. trrJ Station House Officer, WPS Gachibowli, Cyberab'rc One CC to SRI HARINADH NIDAMANURI Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies 2 3 4 6 (lR/karn (^- HIGH COURT DATED:131081202s ORDER CRLP.No.8665 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRLP qc"t("b Yra:P -,,' ' /r'. . '\ .. .\ .-r..: i; 1o B \ t-^, '\. I' \ TTM i. ,/ '\: --_- ,.t,' -2'