The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circtlmstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto Quash the Criminal Proceedings initiated against the Petitioners/Accused nos. 2 to 5 in C.C. No. 42O oI 2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Medak (Out of arising Crime No. 91 of 2023 on the file of the SHO Chegunta Police Station for the offence Under Sec. 498- (A) l.P.C., and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. ,/ f t.A. NO: oF 2023 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 personal appearance of the Petitioners/ Accused nos. 2 to 5 in C.C. No. 420 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Medak (Out of arising Crime No. gl of 2023 on the file of the SHO Chegunta Police Station) pending disposal of the Quash Proceedings. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Palle Sriharinath, Advocate for the petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.8014 ot 2O23 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C No.420 ot 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at ttledak. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short'the Act').

02. Heard Sri P. Srihari Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No. 1. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between accused No.l and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 04.05.2022, and they lived together happily for two months Thereafter, the accused No.1 and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 subjected her to physical and mental harassment by demanding her to give her total gold 2 to them. They even beat the respondent No.2 and necked out her from the matrimonial home. Aggrieved by the said harassment, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 49g_A of the lpC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitroners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and has never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. rt is submitted that the petitioners_accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents and the petitioner-accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters of the accused No.1. They never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners have neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents at any point of time. It is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Section 498-4 of lpC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. f ( 3 Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5.

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners 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 2022, the respondent No.2 and accused No.1 lived together happily for two months. lt is evident from the record that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the old aged parents of the accused No.1. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are the married sisters of the accused No.1 and they are living separately with their families.

07. ln Geddam Jhansi and another v. The Sfafe of Telangana and othersl wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos31, 32, 33,34, 35, 36 and 38 held that: ' 2oz5 tNSc 160 4 -arnd "!!. lnvoking ciminal process is a senbus matter with penal consequences involving coercive *"i"u,r.r, wlich can be permitted onty when "puii"-""if"l which constitute offences punishable under the penal "?!: ?, any other penat statute are "tUg[i o, attibuted to the accused and a pima frc,, la"e ,s made out. lt applies with equat force when ,iinrt laws are invoked in domestic dr.spufes. Criminatis;ing domestic dlspufes without specific a egations credible mateials to support the sami may ha,re disaslrous conseguences .for the institution oi frri$ which is built on the premise of love, u,ffe"tnr, cordiatity and mutuat trust. tnstitution of fiiity conslitufes the core of human society. Oomestic relationships, such as fhose between tr.ity members, are guided by deepty ingrained so,ciat values and cuttural expectationsi;. fneJe retationstt ips are often viewed as sacred, demanang a nigner-ieitret of respect, commitment, and emotiinat iivestment compared to other social or professronal ass ociations. For the aforesaid reason, prese rvation of family re,lationship has always been emphasiseA upon Thus, when family relationships aie ,orgnt i;-i" brought within the ambit of ciminrt pio,r."ii,rl)" ru!tunng the family bond, courts should iu ctrcumspect and judicious, and shauld allow invocation of criminal process onty when there are specific ailegations with suppofting mateials which clearly constitute ciminal offences. 32 We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as su"h in the complaints filed alteging domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the famity ntno ai ,ot come to the rescue of the comptainant or remain mute sf:ctafors to any atteged incident of nrrus"ri,rt, *h:h ,:. our view cannot by itself constitute a,ct without there being specific acts attributed to " "r^i,r)t them Further, when tempers run high and relationships tum bitter, there is atso a propZnsiJ"i exaggerate the a egations, which does not -harassment 5 necessaily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.

33. /f goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. 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. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. ln fact, to deal with this pemicious phenomenon, stringent stalules like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since, violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now ciminalised entailing senbus 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 law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount impoftance, and assuch, a balance has to be struck by ensuing 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 matimonial relationship which is founded on lhe basrb 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 paftner, 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 seies of acts which tums, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving 6 allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a sen'es 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 crimina! proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere genenl ailegation of harassment without pointing iut the splcrfcs against such perpetratorc would not suffice, as r.s the case rn respect of the present appellants.

35. We are. thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possrb/e, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted. as otheruvise, it may amount tc misuse of the stringent ciminal process by indisciminatety dragging all the members of the family. There may bL situations where some of the tamiity members or relatives may tum 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 mean that they are also perpetrators of n _ecessarily domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating al! such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts bihem and proceeding against them without pima facie evidence that they were complicit and had activety collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law. 36. Our obseruations, however, should not .be generalised to mean that relatives cannot be brought under the puruiew of the aforesaid penal provisiins when they have actively participated in inflicting cruelty on the daughter-in_law/victim. What needs io be assessed is whether such altegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such iembers of the famity or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a matrimonial discord and a egations made by an emotionalty disturbed person. gin and 7 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. White the marriage took place in Pondicherry and the comptainant lived with her husband and mother-inJaw in Chennai, the appellants are residents 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-accuse d for a eged offences committed in the matrimonial hoase of the complainant on the basr.s of very generalised allegations does not appear to be tenabte.,, 08. It is pertinent to note that there is no reference to any act of harassment by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 towards 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 to 5 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 to 5.

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 8 Narayana and others v. Sfafe of Tetangana and anothel wherein at Paragraph Nos.1g, 24, 25,2g,29,31 & 32 it was held that: "P. A bare perusal of the FtR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellait No.1 her and that appeilant Nos.2 to 6 instigated !1ralseA him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provideld any specific details or descibed any pafticutar instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the atteged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR ticks concrete and precise altegations.

24. lnsofar as appettant Nos.2 to 6 are concemed, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of cime without any rhytne or reason. A perusa! of the FtR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appettant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.l for demanding more dowry. /l r.s also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appeltant No.l and respondent No.2 and their chitdren. Appeltant Nos_2 and 3 resided together at Guntakat, Andhra pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Neltore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members criminal case arising out of a matimoiiat dispute, .a without specific a egations indicating thek active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a welt_ recognised fact, bome out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to impticate att the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes aise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupporled by concrete 'AtR 2ozs supREtrrtE couRT 173 9 evidence or pafticularised allegations cannot fom the basis for criminal prosecution. Coufts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members' ln the present case, appellanf 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 matimonial house of appellant No-l and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into ciminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the taw in the absence of specific altegations made against each of them.

28. The inclusion of Secfion 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty 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 rise in matrimonial dispufes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of maniage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency lo misuse provisions like Sectlon 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 duing matimonial 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 famity. Sometmes, recourse is taken to invoke Secfion 4984 of the IPC against the trusband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife' Consequently, this Courl 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 contemptated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a comptaint or initiating any criminat proceeding. That is 10 not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present o1e, where as a counterbtast to the p,*iiilr-"i lisytutign of maniase sousht by tne firsi ,ii"i,rri husba.nd of the second respondent ;;;";;,"',,; complaint under Section 4( theiatter,;;;;,,";;'i;"::ru,:,2:,'!^Z'::ri:r:,:Xt^?:,rl ye,a.nt mlintf for the protection of a woman ;;; ; subjected to cruelty in the matrimoniat h";; p;;;r;; due to an unlawful demt vatuabte r""uriy"i; ;;'i::ttr ;:f i:I:r:: somelmes rt ls mrsused as in the present ca""''"""",, !! Fufther, this Coutt in preeti Gupta vs. Sfafe of rharkhand eolo) 7 scc 662 n"n-iirfnJ'iJut" have to be extremelv carefut and c"utiou, i,l i"-Jting with.. these complainls and must take pragmatic realties into consideration *nirc a""inJ",,,ffnn matrimoniat cases. Ihe altegations of n"r""riun"t',iy the husband,s close relat had b.een living in different cities and ,"r.'fT',Y:o 1ri-1..*ni,_"in;;.:;;;;,:;i'i:":;;;':,i;i::i",::, elirety different comptexion. fh. "lbg;;;;r;";; ;. complainant are requirecl to be scrutinize;;;;'g;:;, care and circumspeclion. - l:^.y", ,,!..:?^n, are of the opinion that the mpusned FtR No.82 of 2022 rirca Oy'iiio,n;;;; ;;:; was initiated with ulterior scoresandsrudses"i",lillo'rZi!r:'l::,r:::;;i: tamily members i.e.. appellant Nos.2 ,; ;;;;;;;. Hence, the presenl case'a 1 c a te s o ry ( 7 ) o f i t t u st ra t i ve o r, *"," l^P,!!,r1t.s rh","r.*;;;;;;;";::;;:,:'i::':;":,';:::l:"8, " tn not exercising the pou secrbnuz"Cipi"""da"'i;::*;;:"ry,,::r'?.'r[l:,; ,.: the Court's process by continuing the !:: - i, ,' 'v cnmnal prosecution against the app-ellants.,, 10. ln the present case, as observed supra, v1i! n i petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of the LL accused No.1 , and the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing separately at their matrimonial house along with their families. There are no specific roles attributed to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, nor there are any direct or particular allegations made against thern' ll.Aperusalofthecomplaintdisclosesanallegation 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 regardtothesaidallegation.lnDishaKapoorv.Stateof llttar pradesht it was by the Honourable Supreme Court at ParagraPh No 9 that: "9. We cannot but also obserue that there is no specific altegation of any physical violence except for Vaguestatemenfsmadeaboutthepetitionerhaving been beaten up, in which she sustained a fracture and having Oeen subiected to physicat and mental torture. There is no evidence of a treatment undergone to subsfa ntiate the allegation; especially when the petitioner is said to have suffered a fracture."

12.lnthepresentcaseonhand,thereisneitherany medical evidence nor any statement from a competent medical practitioner to substantiate the allegation of physical 3 RtR 2oz5 sUPREME couRT 2273 1,2 harassment alleged by tire 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 to 5. Nos.2 to 5

13. Upon a careful scrutiny of the averments in the charge sheet, it is evident that, in order to substantiate the basic allegations against the petitioners_accused for the alleged offences, the police have examined a total of five witnesses, out of which four are the complainant and her family members, who are admittedly interested witnesses; one is the investigating officer. Significanfly, no independent witness has been exantined hy the lnvestigating Officer. Furthermore, there is no statement on record from any competent medical practitioner to establish that the complainant 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 petitioners_accused Nos.2 to S. 13

14. lt is pertinent to note that vague, omnibus, and generalized allegations which are devoid of specific instances of cruelty or harassment, particularly, when unsupported by material evidence, do not satisfy the legal requirements under sections 4gB-A of the lpc. Mere mentioning of the names of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, who are relatives 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. t

15. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the setfled principte of law laid down by the Honourable supreme court of lndia in the above decisions, this 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 to s, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.- Therefore, the criminal proceedings against fl're petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are liable to be quashed. 14

16. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.42O of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class tvlagistrate at tr.rledak, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SI)/.A. JAYASREE \SSIS'tAN'I' REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Medak. 2. The Station House Officer, Chegunta Police Station, Medak District. 3. One CC to Sri. Palle Sriharinath, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI 5. Two CD Copies OYIR HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 I ORDER CRLP.No.8OI4 ot 2023 :rUtr ( tA I D() t 't i 6 JAll 2026 z. * ,DAT CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. )rlf