High Court · 2025

I The State of Telangana' re-P by SHO' WqS' 9C9 Hyderabad through Public vears' Hindu' occ G Devi Padma Priva, *^ Elitdl'v';"! kii'rln'' t-s* 'e Housewife, R/o H.No u-s-J;&i'0?l-"tj"i(t;'thi Apartftents' Srinagar colony' "i""=E"|ri".,i nmteipet, Hyoerabad Hiqh c"ourt of ielangana Hyggl'.bud ^ ^. 2 ...RESP.NDENTS/..MPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 oi Ct P C ptly]xo that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorand"'""i c-'*Jt oi c'itin't.-p"iition' the High Court may'be oteased to quash t'e cnargl'it;1 ilcc t'ro rosrl itzozl' on the file of the Xlll in so far as the petitioners are naot. cnl"t Metropolitan 'V:tl;;;;'ivI""nuo in the interest of justice- "o*.tn"d, r.A. NO :1O F 2022 petition under Section 482 0f cr.p.c.prly:ng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand"""i c-'""uJ' oi crimlnar'peiition the High court may be ii""l'p1-o"tJingt.,includins arrest of the petitioners pleased to grant,t,y ot oursuant to the cnarge ,r.,""i"i" '.o ru, ,r the petitioners are concerned rn b c.uo.rosrz of 2021 ."'ii?iir"'"iirre itrr Raat. ihi"f Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending o'tp"*r""i'ii" quasn fetltion' in the interest of iustice' 'rr"f ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingthelr/lemorandumof Grounds of criminat p"t,til"".ni'r;;; h;;ri;g the. arquments of Sri Phanindra Bharoav. Advocate tor tne-petliion"i, unO ot tritis S.Maitravi, learned Asst Public or in't"ii"tpondent No'1 and None appeared for the ;[i:;ril";;"i"n,rt Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI .SRII)EVI () RIMI NAL PETITION No.6 881 ot 2022 ORD ER This Crirninai petition is filed by the petitioners;-accused Nos.2 anc ii to quash the proceedings against flrem in C C.No 1051 , of 2021 on the file of the lerarneld Xlll Additional Chir:f Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad The offence allegecl against the petitioners is under Sec ior 49g_ A of the lndiar penal Code (for short,lpC,) 02 !eard Sri [Vl.phanrndra Bhargav, learne,J ccrunsel for petitioners e;nd Smt.S l\4adhavi, learned Assistant I)ublic Prosecutor for the State No representation on behatf r>f the respondent No 2.. perused the record 03 ln 5,piu;, the case of the prosecution is thai the marriage of the: accused No.1 with respondent N(l 2 was solemnized on I j.02.2017. After few days of marria5ye the accused No '1 w tr the instigation of the accused Nos 2 a rd 3 started harassin,l her physrcally and mentally by dentanrling additional dowry 1,rom her parents. On 04 03.2017 accused No.1 and resporclent No.2 went to America and after g< ing 7 to America the behavior of A1 became even worse Later accused No.1 told respondent No 2 that her dependant visa is going to expire and on that pretext he sent her back to lndia stating that he would ioin her in lndia later after settling the issues in U S But he neither returned to lndia nor sent any amount to her and even did not answer the calls of respondent No 2 Hence the respondent No 2 filed the present case for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC'

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No 2 The petitioner-accused No 2 is the mother in law and the petitioner- accused No 3 is the father in law of the accused No l The petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3 are residing separately from the accused No.'l and respondent No 2 The petitioners never issues of resPondent No'2 and interfered in the matrimonial accused No.1. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents There are no speciflc allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3' The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-4 \ \ i I I I I I j 3 of lPC. Wrtle seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against ihe petitioners_accused Nos.2 and 3 learned counser for the petitioners reried upon a decisio .: n Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. Sfafe of Telant1ana and anothert rvhe,ein the Honourable Supreme Court of ndia at Paragraph Nr:;.31 and 32 held that: "31 l:urtlter, this Court in preeti Gupta vs State of ,lh,arht,and (2010) Z SCC 667 hetd that the court:, lt,tte to be extremely careful and cautiot,s in dt>itlinq with these complaints and must take praqlrtafi ) realties into consideration while clealinq with ,nat,irnonial cases The attegations of haras:;mr:ttt by the husband,s c/ose relatives whr.t had been tiving in different cities and never visite(l or rarely t;sited the place where the complainant reside>r.t tvoulcl have an entirely different comstle xic r,. The allegations of the complainant are rcq'tir }1 to be scrutinized wilh great care ano ctrcu ntspection.

32. We,, t t,e refore, are of the opinion that the tmpugned f:lR No.B2 of 2022 filect by responclent No.2 t/as initiatect wth ulterior motives ' zozq rNsc ss: 4 a1 I to settle personal scores and grudges against appeltant No 1 and his family members ie ' appellant Nos 2 to 6 herein' Hence' the present case at hand fatts within category () of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhaian Lal' Therefore' the High Coutl, in the present case' erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Secilon 482 CrPC and thereby faited to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants'"

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submittedthattherearespecificallegationsagainstthe petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting full-fledged trial by the concerned Court below and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition'

06. As seen from the entire record' the accused No 1 usedtoworkinU.s.A.asaSoftwareprofessionalwithtMulti National Company and immediately after marriage he along with respondent No.2 left lndia' The respondent No'2 and accused No.'l were living together in USA' whereas' the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 have never stayed with them and they are residents of Nizamabad, Telangana State' Therefore, it iqclear that the petitioners-accused Nos'2 and 3 \ \ ,7 5 were refjtding separately responde,tt No.2 from the accuseJ No.1 and No1 -'-here lnstance s cf Cl All the allegations are made against th e accused are no specific details or descriptivt: pa rticulars of harassment caused by the petitiorrer s_accused Such generalised and unsupported by concrete evidence or particulariserl cannot fornr ltasis for criminal prosecution sweeping a :cusations Nos.2 and 3 r rllegations Oti. [\4aking vague and generalised allegatiols during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutintzed, will lead to th: rnisuse of legal proces ses and an encouragement for use of € rn twisting tactics by a rvife and/or her family sometimes, recouse is taken to invoke rle,::ion 49BA of the lpC against the husbrand and his family in orrJer to seek compliance with the unrezsonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound tc ensure whether there s any prima facie case against the hus;br:nd and his family me,rnbers before prosecuting the husbarrrl r,rnd his family mem be,.s; The petitioners herein are mother anrl firther of the accused Nc 1 who are living in Nizamabad District ard have not resided in the matrimonial house of the accusecl Nc .1 and respondent No :1, who are residing in U.S.A Hence, they cannot I I a I I I I I 6 be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them'

09. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case Including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decision' thisCourtisoftheconsideredopinionthatthecontinuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3 amounts to abuse of process of law' therefore' the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3 are liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3 in C.C.No.10517 of 2017 on the file of the learned Xlll Additional chief tr4etropolitan tVlagistrate court at Hyderabad' are herebY quashed' As a sequel, Pending miscellaneous aPPlications, if ?NY, Shall stand closed. ^ sd/- MoHD' ls-l[4]! ASSISiANi REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' sEcrBXIi;=- I To

1. 2. J. The Xlll Ad The Station One CC to t-- i,qi:"h[x"*f B1i#[#]f."#Ji#I's:#:i'

4. Two CCs ic pl.IlLtC PROSECUTOR at Hyderabad l:)UTl

5. Two CD co;,rer 'fiit- BJLB/DL High Court for the S;t:rle of Telangana \ HIGH COURT DATED:12t03tZO?.lr I I -.< : -:" '-' i)i ,, 'i_,' .$' .\ \" ) i ORDER CRLP.No.6881 of ?.022 \ \:-. _ { ( CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED 4