The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Farha Mohammed, Wo' Kocherla Sg.nleeva Rao' Aged. atout' 49 Years' - o;. bon*.r. e.provei,, AJoressl. Rl/o. Flat No.303. Vanshil Residency, EW Colony, arue r-#ii'vi'iiiilildit"'np"' n'ng'reddv District' TS - 500089 Mobite No. 9346556i'34,'ds'Bi;SSiOs [adi""i-i]Ryo. ri.tlo.tz-2-829t_1-t\^^ KhadeerEnclave,Dil.ft i"l.;b;;b-olon;rMenaipatnam,Hvderabad-500028' f.S. utooite No. 9346556234, 9581 555269 ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C', praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay be pleased to call for the records relating to C'C' No' 889t2O22' which is pending onthefiIeofHonourableXlll-AdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrateat Nampally, HYderabad. t.A. NO:1OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C', praying that in the circumstan@s statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition'theHighCourtmay be pleased to grant stay of a{l further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners/A2 & 43, in C.C. No. BB)IZOZZ, which is pending on the file of Xlll-Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate at Nampary, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the argumenrs of sri c HAR, PREETH, Advocate for the petitioner and the pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No 1 and of sri syed Ahmed Ari, Advocate for the Respondent No.

2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI '- CRIMINAL PETITION No.88l 7ot2023. ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.889 of 2022 on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad' The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act')'

02. Heard Mr.C.Haripreeth, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused Nos.2 and 3, Sri Syed Ahmed Ali, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State' Perused the record

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the in laws of the respondent No'2' The marriage of the respondent No.2 with the son of the petitioners was solemnized on 21.O7-2OO3 as per Christian rites and customs, though respondent No'2 belongs to 2 Muslim community, which is a love cum arranged marriage. After marriage, respondent No.2 joined the company of her husband at Hyderabad and lived happily for a couple of days. Thereafter accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing her to get money from her parents and subjected her to cruelty. She was forced to do all the household work as servant. Later she conceived, but accused Nos.1 to 3 tortured her to go to U.S.A. for the sake of earning money and she went to USA. The petitioners used to put pressure and harass her to send money to them but they never made an enquiry about her wellbeing. She gave birth to a baby boy at U.S.A. in the year 2OO4 and the petitioners also forced her to name him as Nathan Kocherla. Later she returned [o tndia and started living with accused Nos.1 to 3. She gave birthto her second child in the year 2014. A1 always used to take all her earnings for his lavish desires and also demanded additional dowry of Rs.S Lakhs and also he used to consume alcohol, beat her and abused her in filthy language. Due to the said harassment respondent No.2 tried to commit suicide but stepped back for her children. Hence, the respondent No.2 3 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and section 4 of the Act'

04.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmitsthat there are no specific allegations against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 who are mother and father of accused No.1. The only allegation against them is that they used to instigate their son, due to which accused No'1 used to harass the defacto comptainant' He further submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and only omnibus and vague allegations are made against the petitioners herein' There are no specific allegations except stating that additional dowry was demanded by the petitioner and other family members and there are no details anywhere in the complaint about demand or receipt of additionat dowry' The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Seclions 498-A' 506 of IPC and section 4 of ttre Act' White seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petit'roners-accused Nos'2 and3,learnedcounselforthepetitionersreliedupona decisioninDaraLakshmiNarayanaandothersv.Stateof 4 Telangana and anothey' wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia hetd as under: 25. A mere refet the names of famity members ,n , *T!^?3 ',t *"t,i*"ii"i7,7i"i,ll'!'.l,uu aising out or a out speciric a t teg at ions indbating tiii Z!3:,Y"1 ",irinriififfjllins r ; i: :,; ii i.rl: ! ! !i:": : : ;* :i rr ;: :;:::: ;i:::,x yii ; :';: :;:{,; domestic disputes aflse out of discord. such "'!^:!tn generafised u*matrimonial unsuppotted ;; .sweePing accusations qa,ticutariiJa uilor,|on"u" evidence or cannot rorm the basis r", caution ;";;;;;::':1n' coufts must exercise provisions-Z;;iil",': prevent mrbuse of tesat process and avoid unnecessary rrru"":?'', membe's' h ;;;';;::::t or innocent ramitY to o' wio ;;:';::::case' allettant Nos'2 appettant i;.-, ";::'mbers of the famitv of cities and o"''"i"' !if'' !*'* in ditterent ': the mabimeniat house of * " * n de n t N o 2 "oi",rri'{,'^"'.o* h e.re i n. r rii",' iii ri " ^1 _r "riri*r proJJ"ui|,:::y' be dragged into abuse or ,;;;;:;:::nd.the .same woutd be an or sp""in"2;;;Zi;;:'!:,taw in the absence ; made against each of mem. 28. The inctusion of Se osaa or the tPC by way or "";r;;""'/'1' *: " i n te nded to c u rb c ru e tty i n n iJr,a"' o"n"' :' ::. #!,!^;:i:r;;i:::t:!i':!4:i!::"tr;! tnt Years, as there have rr. r: 'AtR 20 25 SUPREME CouRT 173 (' 5 been a notable rise in matrimonial dlspufes across the country, accompanied by growrng discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequentlY, there has ir.*iig tendency fo rnisuse provisions like Secroi 4g8A of the IPC as a tool for unteashing personal vendefta against the husband and his famity by a wife' Making vagu: and generalised allegations during matrimonial confl-icts, if not scrutinized, wilt lead to the misuse of legat Processes and ?n encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a irifu and/or her family' Sometimes' n"ouo" is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to selt compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife' Consequently' this Coutt has, time and again, cautioned again.st prosecuting the husband and his family in the 'absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 31 . Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs' State of Jhatkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courls have to be extremely careful and cautious in deating with these complaints and must take realties into consideration while ir"grri 'aeiting with matrimoa'al cases' The allegations of haiassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion' The attegations of the comptainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumsPection' 6

32. We, theret r:;i:: ;i t ;;,:! ; # fi": :!#,i: ; ulterior *'i'u" to settle personal grudges against appettant "roru?o^!! No.t and o^'i!1. members i.e., appetant Nos.2 to u o"r!?!"I n"!"e' the present case at hand farts *,i! p,ara.metersr,r;irr;:i;::{rrl:lr::,{;:[i::: the High court, i1lne u*;;i;;;,uko in not exercising the section;ur6iJ!i,o"tn3!,!liT,,"!i,:r::lX; abuse of the Co c,iminarproie;;,i|:r;'r:,X;::;.:;:,;:i;;; 05. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that there are hiable issues and there are specific ",,"n.,,""" against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would eome out only after conducting trial by tne concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition.

06. [earned Assistant public prosecutor also prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition. for the State petitioners/accused

07. A perusal of the record discloses that the Nos.2 and 3 are the in laws of the respondent No.2 and there are no specific allegations with regard to date or time of such allegations committed by the petitioners. Only vague and omnibus allegations are made 7 against them and no material was placed by the prosecution with regard to specific instances' Further' it is evident that respondent No'2 is a well educated woman and has been working in USA and the marriage between the respondent No.2 and her husband is love marriage' out of which she gave birth to two children first child was born in USA in the year ZOO4and the second child was born in the year 2014in lndiawithatimegapofaboutloyearsandshewasin married life along with her husband' which itself indicates that she was happily leading her matrimonial relationship'

08. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused' there are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos'2 and 3' Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised a*egations cannot form basis for criminal Prosecution' 09' 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 8 to invoke Sectioh 49gA of the lpC aga,nst the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is a pima facie case against the husband and his famiry membe rs before prosecuting the husband and his farniry rnsrn6ssr. Hence, the petitioners_ac cannot be dragged criminalprosecution;:,:::::;::: be an abuse o, '..'nto arresarions r"o",n]I.",'u::J:,X. the absence or speciric

1.0. ln, view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the setfled principle of law laid down by the Honour,able Supreme Court of lndia irt the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings againsf the petitioners_accused and 3 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the against thern are liable to be quashed. prooeedings Nos.2

11. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings agains pefitioners-accused in c.c.No.8g 9 of 2022the Metroporitan Magistrate quashed. Nos.2 and 3 on the file of Xlll Additional chief at Nampally' Hyderabad' are hereby o n 9 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. a S'.L. LAKSHMI BABU UTYREGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY'I ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Nampally' Hyderabad 2. The S-H.O., P'S' Women' CCS'' Hyderabad' 3. One CC to SRt C HARI PREETH Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR' HIGH COURT' HYD [OUI 5. TWo CD Cop'res W HIGH COURT DATED:05 t0Bt2O2S i: '' i.. 'ir.'2, \+ \ ? 5 stP 2025 '(Yj-,,r.-''' ORDER CRLP.No.BB11 of 2O23 ALLOWING THE CRLP q 6 \