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, CC.No.3661 of 2Q25 on the file of the Xt ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sri T.Anish Advocate, representing Sri S.GANESH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Ambedkhar Dunna, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITI No.8947 ot 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him in Crime No.155 of 2024 of Women Police Station, West Zone, Hyderabad, which, after investigation, has been numbered as C.C.No.3661 of 2025 on the file of the learned XIll Additional Chief Metropolitan fi/agistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498-A of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC') and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short'the Act')

02. Heard Sri T. Anish, learned-counsel representing Sri S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri [Vl. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri Ambedkar Dunna, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

4./ 2 03(a). ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 26,01 .2020, and they lived together happity for about twenty days. Thereafter, the accused No.1 started harassing the respondent No.2 both mentally and physically. lt is alleged that the accused No.1 took the respondent No.2 for medical examination as she was not conceiving, and upon conducting medical tests, it was found that she had no medical issues. Subsequenfly, it came to light that the accused No.1 had a zero sperm count, however, this fact was conceaied frorn the respondent No.2 for a period of six months. , 03(b). lt is further alleged that the other accused persons supported the accused No.1 in harassing the respondent No.2 both physically and mentally. lt is also alleged that the accused No.1 insisted that the respondent No.2 to undergo lvF treatment using the sperm count of his cousin brother. on 24.04.2022, the accused No.1 allegedly beat the respondent No.2 severety, due to which she left the matrimonial home on 2s.o4.2o22 and started residing with her'parents. Thereafter, she rodged the present compraint \ -t 3 alleging offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 of the Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-accused No.5 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. lt is submitted that the petitioner-accused No.5 is the father's cousin brother of the respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.5 never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioner has neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents at any point of time. !t is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.5.

05. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for the l' I \.. 4 unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned .Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition'

06. A perusal of the entire record reveals that after the marriage in the year ZO2O, accused Nc.1 and respondent No.2 lived together happily for about twenty days. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused No.1 started harassing respondent No.2 both physically and mentally on the ground that she was not conceiving. lt is further alleged that upon learning that his own sperm count was zero, accused No.1 asked respondent No.2 to undergo IVF treatment using the sperm count of his cousin brother. Apparently, the petitioner- accused No.5 is the father's cousin brother of the respondent No.2 and the sole altegation against him is that he supported the accused No.1 . 07 . ln Gedda m Jhansi and another v. The sfate of Telangana and othersl wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.31 to 36 & 38 held that. 'zozs lttsc too "l 5 "37. lnvoking criminalprocess is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the penat code or any other penal statute are aileged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. lt applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic dr.spufes. Criminalising domestic dispufes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disasfrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. lnstitution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. Ihese relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professionalassocrafions. For the aforesaid reason, preseruation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings ruptuing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with suppofting mateials which cle arly con stitute cri m i n a I offe n ce s.

32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the famity who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute specfafors to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itsetf constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attibuted to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is a/so a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not \ 5 necessarily mean that such domestic dispufes should be given the colour of criminality.

33. lt goes without saying that genurne cases of cruelty and violence in dcmestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmosf sensdtvify. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours- Tltus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arduotts, wltich does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. ln fact, to deal with this pemicious phenomenon, stringent sfafufes like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Srnce, violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by c/ose relatives is now ciminalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the caurts 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 af the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has fo be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.

34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on fhe basls of cordiality and trust to tum sour to an extent to make a partner to hurl allegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other partner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a senes of acts which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving "l 7 I 'i I allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series 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 criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegation of harassment without pointing out the specffics against such perpetrators would not suffice, as is fhe case in respect of the present appellants.

35. We are, thus, of the view that in ciminal cases retating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possib/e, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessaily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumsfances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.

36. Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean that relatives cannot be brought under the puruiew of the aforesaid penal provisions when they have actively participated in inflicting cruelty on the daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such allegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such members of the family or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a matrimonial discord and allegations made by an emotionally disturbed person. Each and 8 every case of domestic violence will thus depend 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 maniage took place in Pondicherry and the complainant lived with her husband and mother-in-law in Chennai, the appellants are resrdenfs of Hyderabad. As the appellants do not stay together with the complainant and her husband and mother-in-law, to make the appellants as co-accused for alleged offences committed in the matimonial house of the complainant on the basis of very generalised allegations does not appear to be tenable."

08. lt is pertinent to note that there is no reference to any act of harassment by the petitioner-accused No.5 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 petitioner-accused No.5 said to have subjected respondent No.2 to physicat or mental harassment. The charge sheet lacks any detailed particulars or instances of alleged harassment attributable to the petitioner-accused No.5.

09. ln vierv 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 9 Narayana and others v. sfafe of rerangana and anothel wherein at Paragraph Nos.18,24,25,2g,29, 31 & 32 it was held that. '73. 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.l harassed her and that appeltant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassmenf. She has a/so not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the atteged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FtR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

24. lnsofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of cime without any rhyme or reason. A perusat of the FIR would indicate that no substantiat and specific allegations have been made against appettant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. /f is a/so an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together gt Guntakal, Andhra pradesh. Appeltant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without speciftc allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. tt is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial expeience, that there is often a tendency to implicate att the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete ' xa zozs supREME couRT .t 73 10 a\ \i \ evidence or pafticulaised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevenf mr.suse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.l and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift interuention by fhe Sfafe. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency fo misuse provisions like Secfion 498A 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 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 Secfion 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order fo seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, thr's Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear pima 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 Secfion 49BA of the lpC shoutd remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is 7L not the intention of our aforesaid obseruations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of maniage sought by the first appellant- husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Secfion 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. ln fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes ff l's misused as in the present case.

31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. Sfafe of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with fhese complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives whb had been living in different cifi'es and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 'and

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulteior motives to settle personal grudges agarnst appellanf No. 1 and his scores family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the presenf case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Secfion 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

10. ln the present case, as observed supra, the petitioner-accused No.5 is the father's cousin brother of the t2 t respondent No.2 and has been residing separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. A perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the major allegations are primarily against the accused No.1, and the respondent No.2 appears to be aggrieved by the conduct of the accused No.1 in asking her to undergo IVF treatment by using the sperm count of his cousin brother. There are no specific overt acts attributed, or there are no direct and particular allegations made against the petitioner-accused No.5.

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 tJttar Pradesh3 it was by the Honourable supreme court at Paragraph No.9 that: "9. We cannot but a/so obserue 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 susfained a fracture and having been subjected to physical and mental tofture. There ls no evidence of a treatment undergone to substantiate the allegation; especially t AtR 2025 SUPREME couRT 2273 13 when the petitioner is said to have suffered a fracture."

12. Upon a carefut scrutiny of the averments in the charge sheet, it is evident that, in order to substantiate the basic allegations against the accused persons for the alleged offences, the police have examined a total of four witnesses, out of which three are the respondent No.2 and her family members, who are admittedly interested witnesses; and one is the investigating officer. Furthermore, there is no statement on record from any competent medical practitioner to establish that the respondent No.2 was subjected to physical cruelty. Such generalized and sweeping allegations, unsupported by any concrete evidence or specific particulars, cannot form the basis for the criminal prosecution of the petitioner-accused No.5.

13. lt is pertinent to note that vague, omnibus, and generalized allegations which are devoid of specific instances of cruerty or harassment, particurarry, when unsupported by material evidence, do not satisfy the legal requirements under sections 4gg-A of the lpc. Mere mentioning of the name of the petitioner-accused No.5, who 14 is the father's c.o'usin brother of the respondent No.2 in the charge sheet, without attributing any speclfic overt act or role to him, is not sufficient to sustain prosecution. 14- rn view of the tacts and circumstances of the case incruding the setiled principle of raw taid down by the Honourabre supreme court of rndia in the above decisions, this court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of clear, ciirect, and substantive ariegations indicating the involvement of the petitioner-accused No.5, the continuation of criminar proceedings against him wourd amcunt to an abuse of the process of raw. Therefore, the criminar proceedings against the petitioner-accuseci No.5 are liable to be quashed. 15' Accordingry, the criminar petition is arowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.5 in c.c.No.3661 0f 2025 0n the fire of the rearned xilr Additional Chief Metropolitan [Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Nampally, 15 As a sequel, pending misceilaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed { //TRUE COPYII To, 1 2 3

4. 5 6. *> NVB/SA SD/. M.NAGAMANI SISTANT REGISTRAR S ON OFFICER Hyderabad Telangana at HIGH COURT DATED:30/1 012025 -i\ii:;i,q' t; t; l, +l :.) I'\ 1 $ ELC ?$ffi !a -!l' ORDER CRLP.No.8947 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q J s v