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 extend interim order granted in CRL.P. No. 8390 ol 2023 d|.3110812023. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 the appearance of the Petitioner in C.C.No. 2728 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Metropolitan lvlagistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petttion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T S Anirudh Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri p.Animi Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ,:b THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.839O of 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short 'Cr.P.C') by the petitioner/accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2728 of 2O2l on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District (for short, the trial Court), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 49a-A, 323 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Mr.T.Pradhyumna Kumar Reddy, Iearned counsel representing petitioner, Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l/State and Mr.P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of 2"d respondent ald A-1 was performed on 16.02.2020. Their engagement was performed on O8.I2.2O19 and at ,l I 2 EW,J Crl.P.No.839O of 2O23 that time, t he parents of 2"a respondent gave Rs 2,00,OO0/- cash, Rs. 30,000/- for clothes and 3 T\rlas of gold to the accused as dowry and at the time of marriage, 2.5kg silver ornaments. 1O laldrs cash for household articles and 65 Tulas ol gold was given as dowry, apart from of all these, the parents of the 2"d respondent spent Rs.3B,OO,000/- for marriage. After two days of marriage, it is alleged that all the accused harassed the 2".1 respondent for an additional dowry of Rs.1O,00,OOO/- for purchase ol a plot. Later, )",t respondent joined her husband A 1 at Singapore and after couple of days, A-1 went home in a drunken condition and beat her and forced her to ask lor more money from her parents. Later, the 2,,d respondent conceived and fell ill but even after that A- 1 fought with her and sent her back to India as he u,as not interested in bearing medical expenses of 2"d respondent and after that A-1 never called her and due to the mental harassment meted out by her, she underwent abortion. A- 1 blamed the 2nd respondent and never responded to her calls. and intentionally blocked her phone numbers and her parents phone numbers and even sent a 3 EW,J Crl,P.No,E390 oJ 2023 legal notice. When the 2"d respondent and her parents went to house of A-2 to ask about the same, she did not open the door and insulted them in front of their neighbors. Thereafter, the 2"d respondeht gave a report against A-1 to A-4 and the same was registered as Crime No.48 of 2O2l on the hle of Medipally Police Station, after completion of investigation, the police filed the present charge-sheet for offences u/s 498-4, 323 IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned senior counsel representing petitioner/A3 contended that the petitioner/A3 is innocent of all the offences alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The Petitioner herein is brother-in-law of the 2"d respondent (elder brother of A-1) He further contended that immediately after marriage of A-1 and the 2nd respondent on 16.02.2020, the Petitioner/A3 returned to USA on 01.03.2020 and since then the Petitioner has never stayed under one roof with the 2.d respondent. He further contended that apart from bald and omnibus allegation that after two days of I \ I I i 'l 4 EW,J CrLP.No.8390 ol 2O23 marriage, A 1 to A-4 harassed the 2.d respondent for additional dowry, the name of the Petitioner is nowhere mentioned. LIe further contended that the n-rarriage of the petitioner herein took place in the year, 2009 and later, in 2012, he moved to USA along with his family and ever since he had been residing in USA. He further contended that the Petitioner herein did not even attend the engagement ceremony of A-1 and the 2.d respondent and he onl], met the 2L(1 respondent for the first-time during marriage. He further contended that the 2"4 respondent is an educated Jady, having studied M.Sc Bio-Technologr and she wouid rrot have kept quiet for such a lon51 time if the allegations that are made in the charge-sheet with regard to harassment or demand of dowrv were to be true.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/A3 further submits that Section 322 IPC which delines "voiuntarily causing gricvous hurt" reads as follows: "Whoever aoluntarilg cduses hur.t, iJ the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likelg to cause is grievous hura, a.nd if the hurt which he ccuses is grieaous hurt, is said. "voluntarilg to cduse grieuous hurt," ) ( 5 EVV,J Crl.P.No.839O of 2O23 He further submits that even a bare reading of the charge- sheet, would make it clea-r that Section 323 IPC does not attract to the Petitioner herein. There is no allegation as against the Petitioner herein with regard to voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the 2.d respondent. The said allegation is against A-1 during their stay in Singapore.

6. He further submits that 2'a respondent has gone to an extent of even naming aunt of A- 1 (arrayed as A-4), who acted as a mediator for their marriage, which itself speaks volumes about the attitude of the 2.d respondent in falsely implicating the family members of A-1 out of personal vendetta

7. He further submits that Sec. 498-A IPC does not attract to the petitioner herein which reads as follows: Husbq.nd or relatlve of husband of a ruornan stbJecting her to crueltg Whoever, being the husbond or the relative of the husba.n.d o.f q uoman" subJects sr/.ch woman to crueltg shall be punished uith lmprlsonment for a terrn uhlch mag ertend to three gears and shall also be llable to ff.ne. Expla,nation. -Fo" the pufpose o.f thls sectlon, "ctateltg" means- (a) ang wtful coaduct uthich is of such d ndture a.s is likelg to d.r'lue the uorlan to commit sttlclde or to \ l 6 EW,J Crl.P.No.8390 ol 2023 cczuse grdve injury or d.qnger to lik, limb or health (whether mental or phgsical) of the urotnq.n; or (b) harassment oJ the uoman tohere such haro,ss,,trent is with a uieu to coercing her or ang person relqted. to her to meet qng unlduttul demand Jor ang propertg or valuable securitA or is on a.ccou'at of Jailure bg her or crng person related to her to neet such d,emand. He further submits that even taking into account of all the allegations made, no case is made out against the Petitioner herein as the charge-sheet does not reveal any specific a-lle gation ol.her than vague and bald allegations There is no specific overt act attributed to the Petitioner herein B. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in K, Subba Rao v, The State of Telangana, observed that:- "6.'Ihe Cour-ts should be careful in proceeding agdinst the disto.nt relatiues in crimes pertaining matrimonio.l disputes and. d.oury deaths. The relatiues of the husband should. not be roped in on the basis oJ omnibus allegdtions unless speciJic instances ol their inaoluement in the crime q.re rnadp out." Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered. in Geeta Mehrotra & Ann Vs. State of Ut-tar Pradesh, specifically held that the continuation of proceedings against whom '. )( 7 EW,J Crl.P.No.8390 of 2023 specific instances of harassment are not alleged in the charge-sheet or in the statements, would amount to abuse of process of Law.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the in preethi @upta and. another Vs, State oJ Jharkhand and another, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically concluded that the implication of the relatives in the complaint is only meant to harass and to humiliate them and permitting complainant to pursue such complaint would be an abuse of process of law. Having said so, The Apex Court went on to quash the complaint on the ground that it would be unfair to compel the accused to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial Belore parting uith this ca.se, .oe uould. like to obserae thqt a serious relook of ttn.e entire proaislon is roarranted. bg the legislation. It is also a nqtte" ol common knowledge that exaggerdted. tersions of the incid.ent are retTected. in a large number of compldlnts. TlLe tend.encg of oaer implication is clso reJlected. in d. aery large number of cases. '{.ot

35. The cfimirr.rrl trials lead to immense sullerings for all concenred. Eaen ultitnqte q.cquittal in the triat mag be able to uripe out the deep scars of suffering a.lso o.f lgnoming. Unlortundtelg a large number of these complo,lnts haae not onlg J7ood.ed. the courts but o.lso haae led to enorrnous social unrest afJecting peace, hynnong and. happiness of the societg. It is high tine thdt the leglslature must take into consid.eraiion the pragmatic realities and. mq.ke suitable changes in the existlng lau. It is imperatiae lor the legislature to take 1 8 EW,J Crl.P.No.839O ol 2023 :i:.'-. 6 into consid,eration the informed. public oplnion and the prq.gmq.tic req.lities in consid,eration and mqke necessc.ry chqnges in the relevant provisions oj lanu. He further submits that the facts of the ltresent case are in total consonance with guidelines No.5 and 7 laid down in State oJ Haryana & Others a. Bhajan Ldt & Otherst, which read as follows: "(5) Where the o.llegations mad.e ln the FIR or complalnt are so qbsurd. dnd. inherently improbable on the basls oJ which no pradent person.com euer reo;ch a just conclusion that there is suflicient ground for proceeding q.g(I.inst the accused.... ...(7) Where a crimina.l proceed.ing is menifestlg attehd.ed with mo.tq. Jid.e olldior uthere the proceed.ing is malicioustg instituted. uith q.n ulterior motiue lor wreaking vengeqnce on the q.ccused o.nd. wlth a vieu to spite him due to privqte and. personal grudge.',

10. He further submits that all the facts have been misrepresented and the allegations that har.e been made are fabrica ted and lacks any corroboration and the complaint contains mere repetition without any material evidence collected and the 2,d respondent has implicated the Petitioner herein with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the Petitioner, as such continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.2728 of 2O2l before the trial Court ' 1992 Supp. (t) SCC 335 (, 9 EW,J Crl.P.No.8390 of 2O23 is nothing abuse of the process of Law and the same is liable to be quashed. Therefore, he prayed to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.2728 of 2O2l before the trial Court.-

11. On the other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that unless and until a full-fledged tria_l is conducted, truth cannot be elicited and interference of this Court at this stage is unwarrarted. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

12. Learned counsel for 2"d respondent/complainant also argued in similar lines and sought for dismissal of Criminal Petition

13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for \ the r respective parties and relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of I 10 EW,J Crl.P.No.8390 of 2O23 n Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal2, Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and another Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu and another3' Devendra and others Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and auother+, Geeta Mehrota and another Vs. State of Utter Pradeshs dated 17.1O.2012, K.Subba Rao vs State of Telangana, Preethi Gupta and another vs State of Jharkhand and another, wherein it was held that if the first inforn-ration report does not disclose any material u'hich constjtutes an offence, merely making omnibus allegations against the accused, do not constitute any offence under any circumstances. Therefore. this Court is of the opinion that the contents of the complaint reveals that except making general allegations, no specific and distinct allcgations are made against the petitioner/A3 and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioner herein, it would be unjust if he is forced to go through thc tribulations of the trial. , 1992 (Supp.) I SCC 335 3 2009 l4l scALIi 685 4 2009 (71 SCALTT 6I3 sCriminal Appc;Ll No. 1674 of 2012(Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No. l0 547 l21l0l Ll EW,J Crl.P.No.839O of 2O23

14. Accordingly, this Crimina-l Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.2728 of 2O2l on the file of Iearned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// srl/- V. HARI PRASAD asStsrnnr REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER i::ffi1ilffi-::r#:'' To | ffi Bfl'l"iffi YJR /PR $ I u HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 ORDER CRLP.No.8390 of 2023 t f (: i, .:L. '-1(-) ia SD+ 2 a t;,?, ,M , a j {'i ,r,.: ' dj:.__ '.'t :,:'.u2 ALLOWING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. @)q;* " $v- 'r6d6