The High Court · 2025

Smt. M.Sree Divya, W/o. Sri. M. Lohith Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Occ' Software Engineer, R/o. G-101, Plot No 38, Road No'S, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33 ...Respondent No.2/Defacto-complainant 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 proceedings against the Petitioner or Accused No. 4 in C.i.tto. Sglz1lt on the fiie of the Hon'ble XlllAddl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 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 O" pfL"."O to stay all further proceedings in C.C. No. 5912017 on the file of the if f r'noor. Metropolitan Magistiate, Nampally, Hyderabad, including the personal upp"rrun"" of ihe petitioner or A.4, pending disposal of the Quash Petition before this Hon'ble Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum. of Grounds of criminal petiti5n and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T NATRAJ, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prrcsecutor for the state of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No l and of Sri D' Bhaskar Reddy' Advocate for the ResPondent No'2. The Court made the following: ORDER ,r / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.6654 oF 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is Iiled by petitioner/ accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.59 of 2Ol7 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 49g-A and 42O of the Indian Penal Code (for short ,IpC) and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekanarda Reddy, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent No. l-State. perused the record.

3. Respondent No.2 / de facto complainant in her complaint alleged that she was married with accused No.1 on

20.06.20L0, in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments worth about Rs.50,OO,0O0/ - were given to accused No. 1 and Rs.25,OO,OOO/- was incurred for marriage expenditure, which includes "Aadpaduchu Katnam" of Rs.5,OO;OOO/_, which were i { I i t I , I : I ! ? I t i I ' I l I 2 KS, J crlp_6654-2019 given to the two sisters of her husband. Accused No' 1 went to Germany. Thereafter, several allegations were made by de focto cornplainant that her husband, mother-inJaw and her father-in-law were harassing her for more dowry and also insulted her. According to her narration, she was abused for not preparing food etc. In so far as petitioner is concerned, de facto 4. complainant stated that petitioner/ accused No'4 used to encourage accused Nos.l to 3 to harass de forto complainant and justified their acts in presence of the 2"d respondent' On several occasions, petitioner insulted respondent No'2 by saying that the culture and appearance of de facto complainant was worse than a labour.

5. The said allegations formed basis to array petitioner as accused No.4.

6. It is admitted that petitioner was married and living with her husband in Bangalore from the date of marriage of accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Even in charge sheet also petitioner is shown as resident of Bangalore. -) KS, J crlp_6654_201 9

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently, in the ccrse of Dara Lakshmi Naragana & Others a. St<r.te of Telangana & Anotherl, after considering the parameters laid down in the decision in "Bhajanlal's Case" and other various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has observed that "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, the case should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's lamily when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessarily harassing innocent family members t 2024 SCC Online SC 3682 4 KS, J crlp_6654_2019

8. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Achin Gupta as. State of Haryana and others2, considered the similar issue involved in the present case and held that, lodging of FIR in matrimonial dispute is a serious matter and permission cannot be granted to abuse the process of law After considering various judgments of the Apex Court, the Apex Court held as under:- "5. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminai conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations leveled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute."

9. The allegations made against petitioner are vague. Petitioner was admittedly staying in Bangalore and according to respondent No.2, petitioner commented on physical appearance of respondent No.2.

10. To constitute truelty' punishable for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, there has to be willful conduct of 2 2024 SCC Online SC 759 I I I 5 KS, J crlp 6654_2019 such a nature that it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life. Secondly, if there is harassment of a woman with the intention of coercing her or any person related to her, to meet any unlawful demand, such conduct amounts to cruelty.

11. Passing comments on the appearance of respondent No.2 will not fall within the explanation of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC. Passing of such comments would not drive any person to commit suicide. There are no allegations of any harassment with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand, to attract the offence under Section 49g-A of IPC.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.59 of 2OlZ against the petitioner herein. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUW REGISTRAR l Lt'i tr0u orrtcen SEC To, Hvderabad. (OUT) r. ii! Xf f lnOOitional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyjlerabad' i. i;; ic.];'int Fruri" pioiirclto., Hish 6ourt for the State of relansana at 3. O'ne CC to Sri. T Natraj, Advocate ;. o;; cC io snl. D. Bhaikar Reddv, Advocate 5. Two CD CoPies GR HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 ORDER CRLP.No.6654 of 2019 l iiF- s l4 a ,1: (') 03 sEP zffi -) :) \ ..' L) . ..:,, l I ! i ! I ; 'I . I i I CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED I "dd kr-_ -ff*\t'