The High Court · 2025

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 including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.402 ol 2024 on the file of ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C SHARAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and Ms. Muniganta Kanakadurga appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER .1 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWAD,I SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8710 of 202t4. ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C C No 402 of 2024 on the file oF ,:he learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem The offences alleged against th,: petitioners are under Sections 498-4 of the lndian Penal Ccde (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibiti,:n Act (for short 'the Act') 02 Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy learnecl counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri [/1. Ramacharrdra Reddy, learned Addrtional Public Prosecutor for lhe State- respondent No.1 as well as Ms. lVluniganti Kanakadurga, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between accused No.1 and the respcndent No.2 was solemnized on 24.O4.2019. Thereafter, ihe accused 2 No. 1 left for Australia for the purpose of employment, and after about six months, he took the respondent i'Jo 2 to Australia, Upon expiry of her visitor visa, the respondent No.2 returned to lndia, and thereafter, the accused No 1 did not contact her for about one year. Subsequently, in October 2021 , the respondent No.2 went to Australia, where the accused No.1 allegedly subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by abusing her in filthy language, stating that he had received better marriage proposals, end by demanding additional dowry from her parents. lt is further alleged that on 16.11.2022, the accused No.'1 brought the respondent No.2 to lndia and abandoned her at Kothagudem Railway Station Thereafter, when the respondent No.2 approached the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, they refused to speak to her For which, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. lt 3 is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.12 and 3 are parents of the accused No 1, who are aged abo-rt 64 and 54 years, respectively. They never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the ac:cused No.1 The petitioners have neither demanded dowry fp6p 16" respondent No 2 nor from her parents at any point of time. lt is further contended that there are no specifir: or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet The contents of the same do not disclose t1e essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences urrder Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3.

05. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.'1 as well as learned cor,nsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Cou( and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petitiori 4

06. A perusal of the entire record reveals that after the marriage in the year 2019, the accused No.1 left for Australia and subsequenfly, the respondent No.2 joined hrm there, and they lived together for some time. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused No.1 started subjecting her to physical and mental harassment by beating and abusing her. It is also evident from the record that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of the accused No l and that they have been residing separately from the accused tlo.1 and the respondent No.2

07. ln Geddam Jhansi and another v. The State of Telangana and othersl wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 3g held that: "31 . lnvoking criminal process ls a serlous matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishabte under the penal code or any other penal statute are alleged or attibuted to the accused and a prima facle case rs made out. lt applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic dlsputes. Criminalising domestic drspufes without specific allegations and credible materials to suppotl the same may have dlsaslrous consequences for the institution of famity, which is built on the premise of love, affection, ' 2025 rwSC t60 5 cordiality and mutual trust. lnstitution of fe nily conslltules the core of human society. Dom,:::tic relationshists, such as ihose between fznily members, are guided by deeply ingrained s'";r:ial values ano cultural expectations. These relationshtps are often v;ewed as sacred. demanding a higher ,ercl of respect. commitment, and emotional invesh,lent compared ro other social or professional associatrons. For the aforesaid reason, preservation of fantily relationshiSt has always been emphasised ucr>n. Thus, when family relationships are sought tc be brought within the ambit of criminal proceeatr,gs rupturinq the family bond, coutTs should be circumspect and judicious, and should .llow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporling mateials wh,'ch clearly constitute criminal offences.

32. We have to keep in mind that in the conte:i of matrimontal dlspules, emotions run high, and as .:;t,ch in the complaints filed alleging harassmen! or domestutolence, there may be a tendenc" to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain rtute spectators to any alleged incident of harassn,ent, which in our wew cannot by itself constitule a crintinal act without there being specific acts attributeLi to them- Fu:ther, when tempers rLtn high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propenst;y to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessaily mean that such domestic disputes shcLtld be given the colour ol criminality.

33. /l goes without saying that genuine case; of cruelty anrl violence in domestic sphere, whicl, do happen, ottght to be handled with utmost sensit,vtty. Domestic t,iolence lypically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public ga;ze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by publrc at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbc'urs. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victint of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arducus, 6 which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. ln fact, to deat with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent slafules like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted urith very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since, violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now crimnalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the taw to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.

34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on lhe basls of cordiality and trust to tum sour to an extent to make a paftner to hurl altegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other paftner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingty, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of acts which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a serles of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the ciminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general altegation of harassment without pointing out the speclflcs against such perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of the present appeltants.

35. We are, thus, of the view that in ciminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possib/e, as 7 against each and every member of the family wlto are accused of such offences and sought tc be prosecutecl, as othervvise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminai'ely dragging all the members of the family. There mt'y be siluations where some of the family member s or relatives rnay turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and ntai' not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrato,s of domestic violence, unless the circumstances cl?arly indicate tlteir involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making spLtcific allegations and attributing offending acts to then, and proceeding against them without prima facie ewdznce that they ttt,ere complicit and had actively collaboiated with the ;;erpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.

36. Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean that relalives cannot be brcught under the purview of the aforesaid penal provit;ions when they have actively participated in infltllrng cruelty on the daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such allegations are geluine with specific criminal role assigned to such men,bers of the family or whether it is merely a spill over ernd side-effect of a matrimonial discord and allegalions made by an emotionally disturbed person. Each and every case of domestic violence will thus depenC on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case.

38. We have also noted that the appellants do not live with the principal accused. While the marriage took place in Pondicherry and the complainant lived vith her husband and mother-in-law in Chennai. lhe appellants are residents of Hyderabad- As lhe appellants do not stay together with the compla,nant and her husband and mother-inJaw, to make lhe appellants as co-accused for alleged offe ?()es committed in the matrimonial house of 'he complainant on the basls of very generatis:ed allegations does not appear to be tenable." 8

08. lt is pertinent to note that there is no reference to any act of harassment by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 towards the respondent No.2. Significanfly, there are no specific, direct, or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet describing the manner in which the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 said to have subjected respondent No.2 to physical or mental harassment. The charge sheet lacks any detailed particulars or instances of alleged harassment attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and J.

09. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it apposite to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Sfate of Telangana and anothey' wherein at Paragraph Nos 18, 24,25,28,29,31 & 32 itwas 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 harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged ' ntR zoz5 supREtr,,tE couRT 173 9 harassntent occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete atrd precise allegations.

24. lnsofar as appellant Nos.2 lo 6 are concerted. we find that they have no connection to the mattr:r at hand and have been dragged into the web of c;trne witltotrt an,,, thyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indtcate that no substantial and spectfic allegations have been made against appellant N,t:;.2 to 6 other than stating that they used lo instiLlerte appellant No 1 for demanding more dowry. /f is :/so an admitted fact that they never resided with t\e couple nanrcly appellant No.1 and respondent llc,.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 res,ded together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant ilos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectivelt,.

25. A mere reference to the names of family memlters in a criminal case arising out of a matimonial dispu,'e, without specific allegations indicating their actirc nvolventent should be nipped in the bud. It is a trc'tt- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience tf,at there is oft€,n a tendency to implicate all the mentlters of the husband's family when domestic dispufes ad.se out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusatlons unsupported by conc"ete evidence or pafticulaised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Coufts must exer,;i.;e cauliort irt such cases to prevent *isu5s sf ltlg.al prowsions and the legal process and a,cid unnecessary harassment of innocent family memb:rs. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of lhe family of appellant No.1 have b=en living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abu:;e of the process of the law in the absence of spe,;ific allegations made against each of them.

28. The inclusrcn of Section 49BA of the IPC by rvity of an amendment was intended to curb cruetty 10 inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuing swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable ise in matrimonial dlsputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, ccnsequen y, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Seclion 49BA of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to tlrc misuse of tegal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family Somefrmes, recourse is taken to invoke Secfion 498A of the tpC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has. time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his fanily in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 49BA of the lpC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant- husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 49BA of the tpC is todged by the latter. ln fact, the inseftion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarity due to an unlavvful demand for any prcperty or valuable security in the form of dowry_ However, sometimes lt ls misused as in the presenl case.

31. Furiher, this Court in preeti Gupta vs. Sfafe of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 66T hetd that the courts have to be extremely careful and caulious in dealing LL with these complaints and must take pragrntztic realties into consideration while dealing rttith matrimonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living' in different crties and never visited or rarely visitecl the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely di[ferent complexion. The allegations o'lhe complatnant are required to be scrutinized with 11reat care a nd cl rcu m s pection

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that 'he impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent Nt 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores anrl grudges against appellant No.1 arul his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 here:tn. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajar, L.al. Therefore, the High Courl, in the present case, etrred in not exercising the powers available to it u,tder Secllon 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Courl's process by continuing ihe criminal prosecution against the appellants." 10 ln ihe present case, as observec supra, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the aged pa.ents of the accused No 1, and they were residing separateiy from the accused No 1 and the respondent No.2. However, the charge sheet discloses that the alleged ncidents of harassment happened at Australia and between the accused No 1 and the respondent No.2. There are no s;p,ecific roles attributed to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3,, nor there are any direct or particular allegations made aga nst them 72

11. A perusal of the complaint discloses an allegation that the respondent No.2 was subjected to beating However, the charge sheet being the outcome of the entire investigation, does not reveal any conclusive finding with regard to the said allegation. ln Disha Kapoor v. State of uttar Pradesh3 it was by the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph No.9 that: "p. We cannot but also observe that there is no specific allegation of any physical violence except for vague statements made about the petitioner having been beaten up, in which she suslarned a fracture and having been subjected to physical and mental tofture. There is no evidence of a treatment undergone to subslanliate the allegation.. especially when the petitioner is sard to have suffered a fracture."

12. ln the present case on hand, there is neither any medical evidence nor any statement from a competent medical practitioner to substantiate the allegation of physical harassment alleged by the respondent No.2. Moreover, the charge sheet lacks specific details or descriptive particulars of any specific instances of harassment allegedly caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. ' eR 2o2s suPRE[itE couRT 2273 13 13 Upon a careful scrutiny of the avernrents in the charge sheet, it is evident that, in order to sukrstantiate the basic allegations against the accused persons for the alleged offences, the police have examined a toleLl of eight witnesses, out of which three are the respondt:nt No.2 and her family members, who are admittedlv interested witnesses; two are caste elder and circumstantia witnesses, who are not direct witness to the incidents of alleged harassment, two are panch witnesses and ()ne is the rnvestigating officer. Furthermore, there is no r;tatement on record from any competent medical practitioner :o establish that the respondent No 2 was subjected to physical cruelty. Such generalized and sweeping allegations, un:;upported by any concrete evidence or specific particulars, cannot form the basis for the criminal prosecution of the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 14 lt is pertinent to note that vague, onrnibus, and generalized allegations which are devoid rtf specific instances of cruelty or harassment, particularly, when unsupported by material evidence, do not satisfy the legal requirements under Sections 498-4 of the lF,C. Mere T4 mentioning of the names of the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3, who are parents of the accused No.1 in the charge sheet, without attributing any specific overt act or role to them, is not sufficient to sustain prosecution. 'l 5. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decisrons, thrs Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of clear, direct, and substantive allegations indicating the involvement of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be quashed.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.402 of 2024 on the file of the learned ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem, are hereby quashed. 15 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The il Addirional Judicial Magrstrate of First class at Kothagudem' Z fne Station House Officer, Police Station' Kothagudetn' 3 Two CCs ro the pualrcpnoslcuroR, High court at l-lyderabad (oUT) a O"" CC to SRt C SHARAN REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies O O". CC to H,f. ftlUf.f lGANTA KANAKADURcA'Advocate (OPUC) -llrK/psl HIGH COURT i l DATED:3011012025 ORDER CRLP.No.8710 of 2024 '1 r fj : T.{ l- *. ,i 't\ c L) 15 !rt! '1t17t * cO ,( Di a:> r.:t'.-' -::r--:it- CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWI=D 04 tYlrt