High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO -COMPLAINANT Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to QUASH the proceedings in c.c.No.10t4 of 2019 on the fite of the Judicial First class Magistrate, Excise court, Nargonda against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 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 pleased to grant stay of a[ the further proceedings incruding appearance of e petitioners cc.No.1074 of 2019 on the fire of Judiciar First class Magistrate, Excise Court, Nalgonda, against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 are concerned, 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 S SURENDER REDDY, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Vivekananda Reddy' Assistant pubric prosecutor (TG) on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the foltowing: ORDER I i I i I i I I I ; THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURINDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.728E OF 2Ol9 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 1074 of 2Ot9, pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Excise Court, Nalgonda, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, arrd 506 of I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekalanda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 - State. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a telugu typed complaint on O4.O2.2O19. In the said complaint, she narrated that, respondent No.2 married one Shekhar, 2O years prior to the complaint and it was an inter-caste marriage. In-laws of respondent No.2 did not consent to their marriage. Petitioner No.l is the brother-in-law, petitioner No.2 is the co-sister, and petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law of respondent No.2. On the basis of the complaint frled by 2 respondent No.2, a crlme was registered by \&,omen police Station, Nalgonda. 4. The allegation that, these petitioners were mentally harassing respondent No.2, on the ground that she married her husbald, which is an inter_ in the complaint IS caste marriage.

5. During the course of investigation, respondent No.2, in her statement of 161 Cr.p.C., elaborated the events. In the said statement, she stated that 2O years p rior to the complaint, she fell in love with her husband and got married in a temple. Thereafter, her inJaws did not permit them to enter into the house. Father_in_law of the respondent No.2 died after some time. Thereafter, both accused No. I and respondent No.2 went to in_laws, house of accused No. 1. However, she was not permitted to participate in any of the ceremonies of her father_in_law,s last rites and later she was sent out of the house. Though, the petitioners have given them a house to Iive in separately in Gandhi Nagar, however, the petitioners have been abusing her in a fiIth;, language and harassing her physically and mentally. 3 t

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the husband of respondent No.2 is not made as arr accused in the present petition. Therefore, the question of attracting Section 498-r{ of I.p.C does not arise. Further, respondent No.2 arrd the petitioners' family were living separately. The allegation of harassment cannot be believed and the said allegations are made only to get the petitioners to part with more properties.

7. The complaint was filed on 04.02.2019, which is 2O years after the marriage. In the complaint, respondent No.2 stated that, on account of the inter-caste marriage, which was not consented by the family members, she was being harassed by the petitioners/in-1aws. However, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 narrated that the petitioners were harassing her on the ground that she belongs to other caste and that they were also abusing her in a hlthy language for the said reason. Further, the petitioners were a-lso saying that respondent No.2 was a characterless woman.

8. It is admitted that the marriage of respondent No.2 was performed 2O years prior to the complaint and in the said 4 and she grven at alegations complaint, except stating that the petitioners did not consent to the marriage, no other allegation or .*eECrLr.,' or any kind of harassment was made. 9. Respondent No.2 stated that a house was Gandhi Nagar, which is the propert5r of her in_laws started living separately rn the said house. .Ihe made in the complaint are vague and ornnibus. Except stating that the petitioners used to abuse her for marryring her husband and also sayrng that she was eL characterless woman, not a single situation is narrated regar.ding when the alleged abuse took place Even according to t.he respondent rs did not a-llow her into the house and gave her a separate house to reside in. When they are living separately, the question of constanl harassment appears to be doubtful. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners it appears that on account of the disputes regarding the properb5r, the present complaint was fiIed to coerce the petitioners to pa_rt with family properl.ies. 10. In Kqhkqshan Kqusar @ Sonarm and others u. Stqte of Bihart, 6 e Honble Supreme Court held that her inJaws/petitione No.2 unless t (2022) 6 scc 5se I I I l I l I J I 5 there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings cal be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court should be careful in proceeding against the relatives, who are roped in on the basis of vague ald omnibus allegations.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Preeti @tpta o. Sto'te of Jharkhand.z, held. that, the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made, with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives, who were living in different cities and have rarely visited or stayed with the couple.

12. Based on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the petitioners are living separately on theA own and the allegations are vague ald not specific, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

13. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3, in C.C.No.lO74 of 2019, on the file of the Judicia-l First Class Magistrate, Excise Court, Nalgonda, are quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is '?1zoro; z scc ooz i I l l 6 allowed. ltv{iscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. JAYASREE DEPUry REGISTRAR I ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Excise Court, Nalgonda 2. The Station House Officer, Women pS Nalgonda police Station, Nalgonda 3. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRt. S SURENDER REDDy Advocate [OF,UC] 5. Two CD Copies RC/gh YV HIGH COURT DATED: 2110212025 ORDER CRLP.No.7288 of 2019 14: iEJUll XE r.i I \ ":-.- Accordingly, the Criminal petition is Allowed gc"f"L Yt- 66\p