High Court · 2025

1- The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

2. Siddala Chandrakala. D/o Chandraiah aged about.28 Yrs, Occ. Housewife Rio Gollakeri Village, Sadisivpet Mandal, Sanga Reddy District ...RESPONDENT/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 call for the records pertaining to charge sheet c.c.No.628 of 2020 on ihe fil" of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate ( Spl. Mobile Court) Sangareddy and consequently quash the same against this petitioners, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 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 of all further proceedings including the appearancg 9f-lh' petiiioners in C.C.ilo.62B ol 2020 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First blass Magistrate (Spl. Mobile Court) Sangareddy, pending disposal of above quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the tr,,lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments ,>f Sri D y L N charyulu, Advocate for the petitioners and smt Madhavi, A;sistant public Prosecutor, High cc,urt for the State of relangana, Hyderabad c n behalf of the State / Respondent No.1 and of smt Godugura Vijayarakshmi, rrdvocate, regar aid counsel appearir g for the Respondent No.2. The Court maCe the following: ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.6571 o12022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedingS against them in CC No.628 of 2O2O on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Spl. I\4obile Court), SangareddY

2. The brief facts of the case as per defacto complainant are that she got married to accused No 1 on 18.04.2019. After marriage they lived happily for a period of two months. Later her husband along with the petitioners herein used to harass her for additional dowry The parents of defacto complainant took her to their home on the occaslon of Bonalu' but after that she was not taken back by her husband to the matrimonial home. Even when she called him over phone he did not respond. Therefore, the matter was placed before the elders and the elders called for the petitioners to negotiate the matter but none of them responded to resolve the matter' l-lence' she lodged a complaint before Sadashivapet police station' Sangareddy and a case was registered in Crime No 174 of 2Q20 for the offences under section 498-4 of lndian Penal Code (for 2 short IPC) arrC sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act (for short DP Act)

3. l-leard Mr.D.Y.N.L.N.Charyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Godugula Vijayalakshmi, legal aid counsel appearing or behalf of respondent No,2 and Smt.S.l\4adhavi, learned Ass s;tant Public prosecutor for responde rt_State. Perused the r:cord.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the police filed charge sheet by deleting the names of petitror ers 2 to 5, as no case was made out during investigation. As agzrinst the same, with ar intention to harass all the family members the 2nd respondent filr:C Crl.M P.No.95 of 2022 by protesting the letetion of their names and the trial Court without examining the c onlents taken cogniza rce against all the accused.

5. Le;arned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there are rro specific allegations against the petitioncrs wrth regard to denr and of dowry or cruelty against the restrrondent No.2. There is i.to specific abuse against the defacto r:omplainant by the petitionr-.rs and after the marriage of accused No. i lnd the defacto comp ainant they were residing separately ar d only vague and o'nnibus allegations are levelled against the a) petitioners. Further, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that LW2, Laxmaiah who is the neighbor of the defacto complainant has categorically stated in his evidence that the petitioners have not harassed the defacto complainant. While praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioneis, he relied on a decision held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao & Othersl, wherein in para 17 it was held as- Seclion 498 A recognizes two distinct forms of cruelty; one involving physical or mental harm in clause(a) and the other involving harassment linked to unlawful demands for property or valuable security in clause(b). These two provisions are to be read disjunctively, meaning that the presence of a dowry demand is not a pre requisite for establishing cruelty ttnder the section. The allegations made by the appellant, which detail instances of physical abuse and harassment, fall within the scope of "cruelty" as defined under clause (a) of Section 49BA lPC The absence of an explicit dowry demand does not negate the applicability of the provision where acts of physical violence and mental drslress have been demonstrated. The core of the offence under Section 4984 IPC lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely revolve around the demand for dowry. ' crt.a No..../2025 @ stp (crl.) No.9243 of 2024 4 6 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 subm ts that there are specific allegations against the petitioners with re,;ard to harassment m;r,Je by the petitionersl A2, A4 to A7, meted out by the defacto complainant in her complaint and .l6i r)r.p.C. statement. Her r;e, prays to dismiss the criminal petition

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submittcd that there are specitic allegations against the petitioners ancl pri ryed to dismiss the petttion

8. Or perusal of the material placed on record, as per complaint and :harge sheet, there are no specific allegati )ns on demand of rlowry or physical abuse made b.r the petitioners/accrrsed Nos.2, 4 to 7 and only general and ornnibus allegations are levelled against the petitioners and thel were residing separately from accused No.1 and respondent Nc.2 and there are no spercific allegations with regard to harassrnenj made by the accusec and there are no descriptive particulars and details of instar r;es of said harassment made by the petitioners to the defacto conrplainant. 5

9. It is pertinent here to mention with regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshminarayana Vs. State of Telangana 2, wherein in para 25 it was held as - 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 should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well-recognised fact' borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate alt the members of the husband's family when domestic dlspules arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations trnsuppofted by concrete evidence or pariicularised atlegations cannot form the basls for criminal prosecution. Coufts must exercise caution in such cases 1o prevent mlsuse of legal provisions and the /egal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the famity of appellant No.1 have been 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 woutd be an abuse of the process of the law ,in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. I I ' 2ozq lNSc a53 6 'l 0. C)oming to the present facts of the case, ther,-. are no descripti'"re particulars given in the case e,(cept general alleg;llions levelled against the petitioners. ln viow of the facts and r:ircumstances of the case including the setiled principle of larv laid down by the Honourable Supreme Co rrt of lndia in the a bove decision, this Court is of the consicered opinion that t re continuation of the proceedings againsi the petitioners-ac<;used Nos.2, 4 to 7 amounts to abuse of pro,:ess of law, there'ore, the proceedings against the petitiorrers_ accused Nos il and 4 to 7 are liable to be quashed.

11. A,;:ordingly, this Criminal petition is allorved rnd the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4 to 7 in C.C.No.62B ot 2020 on the file of the learned Judicia First Class It/agistrate at Siangareddy, are hereby quashed. lVlisr;i-.llaneous petitions pending, if any, shal stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDi- N. SRI HARI TY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER rlJ:', !., .,] 1 . The Judicial Fir:;i Class ltlagistrate (Spl. Mobile Court) Sangare, idy. 2. The Station Hous;e Officer, Sadasivapet Police Station, Sangare,ddy District now in Medak f,istrict.

3. One CC to Sri l) Y L N Charyulu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC 1o Smt. (3odugula Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, legal aid cr.unsel for the Respondent No :l [OPUC]

5. One CC to the F)ublic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OU l-]

6. Two CD Copies .&;.. r!{ To, HIGH COURT DATED:261031?.025 l ORDER CRLP.No.6571 of 2022 oAc o () ? 4 Lr': 2[25 * -.r'.. 2 a' ). 't. ../ ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION W