He also relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anotn)f wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at p

m Murthy, S/o. Sri Ramoju Linga Brahnram' Aged about 66 -cc: Retd Empioyee, R/o H.No 16-3-718, Ekashila Nagar' Fort Road' . ,arangal District. S;;;j, Varalaxmi, Wo. Sri Ramo.iu Ram Murthy, Aged aboul 6.1 years' Occ.Housewife,R/oH-No.16-3-718'EkashilaNagar,FortRoad'Warangal District ...pETtrloNERS/AccusED No'2 & 3 The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor' High Court at Hyderabad. sil'i- Sri Ramo.iu @ Gadde Anuradha, D/o Gadde Brahrnaiah' Aged about 34 vlrl, o".' Hous&ife R/o Plot No 812, W Nagar, Kukatpally' cyberabad' ...RESPONDENT/DE.FACTO COMPLAINANT 2 AND 1 2 Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records and Quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 in cc.No.2659 ol 2021 on the file of Principal chief JudgeCourtCumVlllAddl.MetropolitanMagistrateatKukertpally,Cyberabad,in the interest of justice. r.A. NO :1OF 2022 PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr'P.Cprayingthatnthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, thel High coul1 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 in cc.No.2659 o1 2.021 on the file of Principal chief JudgeCourtCumVlllAddl.MetropolitanMagistrateatKukatpally,Cyberabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, representing sri. T.s- Anirudh Reddy, Advor:ate for the Petitioner and the sri. s. Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri. P. Giri Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent No.2' The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITI ON Nos.6835 and 6472 ot 2022 COMMON ORDER Criminal Petition No.6835 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 and Criminal petition No6472 of 2022is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2659 of 2021 on the file of Principal Chief Judge Court cum Vlll Additional fi/letropolitan [\4agistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short ,lpC,) sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ,the Act'). r

02. Heard Mr.T Pradyumna Kumar Reddy Senior Counsel representing Mr.T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri p.Giri Krishna, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.tVadhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. perused the record. -_i.-7 2 03 ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused No.1 is the husband and petitioners Nos'2 and 3 are father and mother of accused No.1. The marriage of the respondent No.2 with accused No.1 herein was solemnized on 12.12.2013. After marriage respordent No 2 lead her conjugal life happily for 4 days, thereafter all the accused persons started harassing her to bring additional dowry. Later husband of respondent No 2 took her to China, where upon the instigation of other accused perrsons over phone, accused No.1 used to come home in drunken condition and picked up quarrel with her without any reason and he used to harass her by saying to do job and harass her for additional dowry or else to commit suicid6',He also committed abortion to her. ln the month of 'June 2014, respondent No.2 joined in Ericsson Company and every month her husband used to transfer her salary to his NRI account and he did not give money for her needs Al also hacked her face book and G Mail accounts and used to chat with her friends acting like she is chatting with them and he used to suspect her character and abuse and beat her' ln 2015, her husband brought her to lndia and suggested her to =7 3 stay there for some time and he forced her to resign her job and later he went to Singapore without informing her. In the year 2017, she was blessed with a baby boy Accused No.1 with the saving amount of respondent No.2 purchased a house at Ameenpur. At the time of house warming ceremony he consumed alcohol and abused her and her son and beat them wlth hands and left to Singapore next day and filed a petition for Divorce with O.P.No.324 of 2018 and other accused also left to Warangal. Later parents of respondent No.2 tried to keep her at her in laws house at Warangal. But they refused her and she tried to stay at Ameenpur house with her son, where all the accused gave the rooms for rent to others Hence, the respondent No 2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-4 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2. lf any physical harassment is made as alleged in the complaint by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 ought to have filed medical certificate with regard to obtaining of treatment. Further the 4 accused No.1 and respondent No.2 residecl at China and very occasionally they used to come t:o lndia. The respondent No.2 came to lndia for the purp3ss of delivery along with her parents and since then she refused to join her husband and picked up quarrel with petty issr.res and lodged a false complaint against the petitioners. Further the accused No l filed divorce petition vide Op No.324 of 201g before the Family Court at Warangal against respondent No.2 and the same is pending. Despite putting any efforts for reconciliation or any OP for restoration of conjugal rights, respondent No.2 filed the present criminal petition as a counter blast. He further submitted that accused No.4 in the present case filed Crl.P No 3346 of 2023 before this Court and vide order dated

07.08.2023 proceedings against accused Nc.4/brother of accused No.1 is quashed 05 There are no specific allegations except stating that additional dowry was demanded by the petitioners and other family members and there are no details; anywhere in the complaint about demand or receipt of additional dowry There are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the 5 I i required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 49g-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act and prays to quash the proceedings against these petitioners

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Disha Kapoor ys. Sfafe of tJttar pradesh 1, wherein in para 9 it was held as under:

9. We cannot but also obserue that there is no specific allegation of any pny"rcu,i uiot"f,ce except for vague statements bein beate-n ;; ;ff:; :::{,!:,:;,:,,::,:;XZ having been subjected a pny"i""i)ii ientat tofture. There is no evider. tce of a treatment undergone to substantiate the especiattv when the petitioner is said to l:?1::': ,ave suffered a fracture. 07. He also relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anotn)f wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at paragraph and 25 held that Nos. 1g, 24 h "+ A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by res and omnibus. otn", m",f,o!,!en! r a ;; r; ;; "; ; i, ::: #';"? ::i, #:;,,;, : :::?:,:! him to do so, respondent No.2 has not prowded any specific d, or.described any particurar instance ., n"::1": not mentioniJ ;;;,;, ;' ";:::'ri::"t:: ri::r::; No 2 are vague lt_o,1 ? 'zozs fttsc oag . AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 6 which the alleged harassment occurr€d. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegation s. 24. lnsofar as appeilant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragg,=d into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR woutd indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appeltant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. tt is also an aoimitted fact that they never resided with the t;ouple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 n>sided together at Guntakal, Andhra pradesh. Aptrteilant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Ountur respectively. 25. A mere reference to the names of family members tn 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-recognisec, fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there rs otnen a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generitlised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or pafticularised allegittions cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases lo prevent misuse of legal provisions and the tegal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the present ,case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members <tf the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appeilant No.1 and responde2t No.2 herein Hence, they cann<tt be 7 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."

08. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 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 this Criminal Petition.

09. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State also prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 10 A perusal of the record reveals that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. In view of the cryptic particulars and divorce petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2018, as a counter blast the wife has filed the present petition. Only vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners and there are no descriptive padiculars with regard to alleged harassment made by the petitioners

11. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no \1 - specific detairs or descriptive particurars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners_accused No.1, 2 and 3. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution.

12. 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 Section 49gA of the lpC against the husband and his family in order to seek compriance with the unreasonabre demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bclund to ensure whether there is any prima facle case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the hus,band and his family members. Hence, the petitioners_accused I\p.1,2 and 3 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and fl-re same would be an abuse of process of the law in the abserrce of specific allegations made against each of them.

13. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the setfled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decision, --7 9 this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners_accused No.1, 2 and 3 amounts to abuse of process of raw, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners_accused No.1, 2 and 3 are liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, these Criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners_accused No. 1, 2 and 3 rn C.C.No.2659 of 2021 on the file of principal Chief Judge Court cum Vlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, any, shall stand closed. I SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To,

1. The PCJC cum Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally Cyberabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kukatpally, Medchal District 3. One CC to Sri. T.S. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. P. Giri Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

6. Two D Copies TTS/PSL t: ,; og siP lo25 HIGH COURT DATED: 3010712025 ORDER CRLP NOs: 6835 AND 6472 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION ARE ALLOWED @ 1A