The High Court · 2025

Petilion under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/A-2 in C-C. No. 3364 of 2024 on the file of lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, pending disposal of the above quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. VEERA BABU GANDU, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. M.Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri. R SAndhya, representing Sri. Nageswar Rao Pujari, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.11111 of 20il I ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitior:r-accused No.2 to quash the proceedrngs against her in C.C. \o.3364 of 2024 on the file of the learned lll Additional , unior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Judicial l\rlagistrate of I irst Class, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar. The offenc:s alleged against the petitioner-accused No.2 are under S: :tions 4gg- A of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lpC') an<l Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibrtion Act (for short 'the r ct')

02. Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learr:d counsel for the petitioner-accused No2 and Sri IVl Ranachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public prosecutor fcr the State- respondent No. 1 as well as tvls. R. Sandhya, learr ed counsel representing Sri Nageswar Rao pujari, learned :ounsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. perused the recc,r I

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the -espondent No 2 was solemnized on 06.06.2023 before th: Registrar 2 andwassubsequentlycelebratedinatraditionalmanneron 1g.11.2023. Thereafter, the accused No 1 left for the United KingdomwithanassurancetotherespondentNo.2thathe would take her along him after securing a spouse visa lt is alleged that the accused No l subjected the respondent No.2 to both physical and mental cruelty by suspecting her character. lt is further alleged that he obtained a sum of Rs 72,000/- from the respondent No 2 and coerced her into signing divorce papers lt is also the allegation of the prosecution that the accused No'1 retained her gold ornaments, silver articles, and valuable gifts' Aggrieved by the alleged acts of cruelty and continuous harassment' the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against the accused Nos l to 5' 04 Learned counsel for the petltioner contended that thepetitioner-accusedNo.2hasnoinvolvementwhatsoever in the alleged offences and has never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment lt is submitted that the petitioner-accused No 2, who is aged more than 63 years and is the mother of the accused No l, has not interferedinthematrimonialaffairsbetweentherespondent / // 3 No.2 and the accused No.1. lt is further su: nitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 has neither deman,i :d dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents i t any point of time. Learned counsel would contend thrr there are no specific or direct allegations against the peti ioner-accused No.2 either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, and the contents thereof do not disclose the esse. ial ingredients necessary to constitute the offences pu r ishable under Section 498-4 of the IPC and Sections 3 afi 4 of the Act. lt is also submitted that this Court, by order d: ed 11.12.2025 passed in Criminal Petition No 11154 of 2Ci4, has already quashed the proceedings against the accus:d Nos.3 to 5, and therefore, on the same footing, the crimir al proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 are al;o liable to be quashed 05 Learned Additional Public Prcs:cutor for the State-respondent No.'l as well as the learne: counsel for the unofficial respondent No 2 submitted that tlr:re are specific allegations against the petitioner and the trr th or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial kr, the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Pet ion \ \ *=a \l\ - 4

06. A perusal of the entire record reveals that after the marriage, the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1 WAS performed twice i.e. on 06.06.2023 in the Registrar Office and traditionally on 18.11.2023. lt is evident from the face of the record that the majority of the allegations are directed against the accused No.1, the husband of respondent No.2. The present petitioner, who is arrayed as the accused No.2, is the mother-in-law of the respondent No.2 and is aged approximately more than 63 years 07 Significantly, there are no specific or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet detailing the manner in which the petitioner-accused No.2 allegedly subjected the respondent No.2 to physical or mental harassment. All the allegations are made against the accused No.l There are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioner-accused No.2. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution. L I, 5

08. ln view of the facts and circumsta":es of the present case, it apposite to refer to the dec: ion of the Honourable Supreme Cou( of lndia in Dare Lakshmi Narayana and others v. Sfate of Telangana an I anotherl wherein at Paragraph Nos.'l 8, 24,25,2g,29,31 t 32 itwas held that "18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that \e allegations made by respondenl No.2 are vague t td omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant l! , 1 harassed her and that appeltant Nos.2 to 6 instiqa =d him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided i ny specific details or described any pafticular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the t r e. date, place, or manner in which the alleg =cl harassment occurred. Therefore, the FtR lir, ks concrete and precise allegations.

24. lnsofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concer,t td, we find that they have no connection to the mattttt at hand and have been dragged into the web of c,.i ne without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the ltR would indicate that no substantial. and spec fic allegations have been made against appellant N t ;.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instt,) ie appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. /t is ; so an admitted fact that they never resided with he couple namely appellant No_1 and respondent t,t ).2 and their ch dren. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 res t ed together at Guntakal, Andhra pradesh. Appe ant tt ts. 4 to 6 lrve in Nellore, Bengaluru ancj Gr.r tur respectively. Z!. A mere reference to the names of family mem) )rs in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial disJ t te, without specific allegations indicating their ar:i ve ' arR zo2s supREME couRT r 73 I / l I i I .-.\3 o_f the "oi),". e o r s p e c i ri c tnvolvement shoutd be nipped in the bud. lt is a wett_ recognised fact, borne thereisoft u,;';;;";:;i".: j;i::i:";i:;:::":;,1:: famity when domestic iiori"')r,"" -husband,s out of a matrimonial discord. srrn i"r,"irir"d- rro sweeping accusation: e v i d e n c i o r p a -, ;; ; ; ; rt : ; : : : :, ::: ",y.,',:: ;, f ;: basis for ciminal prosecution. Cou,ts musi " caution in such cases "r"r"ir" prevent ,iruru of"'ig"t provisions and the legal process .!o "ri "i.^ unnecessary harassment of innocent famity meibers ln the, present case, appe ant Nos.2 to O, *no ,rJ"n" me.mbers of the famity of appellant N" l irr" i.", living in different cities and have not resided in the r1,at1m.onial house of appettant No.t "ni ,""poraent No 2 herein. Hence. they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same woutd be"i, of the process of the la a t t e s a t i o n s m a d. a s a i n r["': ;X,1::;' " 28. The inclusion of Section 49gA of the lpC by way -lrr"iy of an amendmenl was. intended to infticted on a woman by her husbana urA ii, iliU, ensuring swift intervention by the Stut" Uo*.,i"lr,"tin recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the cotjnt^/ a.ccompanied by growing discord "ra rcnsio, *iini, t::-i:stitution. of marriage, consequenily, there has ueen a growng tendency to misuse provisions tike Seclion 49gA of the lpC as a tool ,;;"";;;;; personal vendetta against the husband ,na i,i"ir_ii wrfe Making vague and generaiisea-r;;;r;;;;i -wit during ritatimoniat confticts, if not scrutiniziJ, lead to the misuse of legat processes ;;; ;; encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics- bf a wife and/or her famity. Sometimes, ,""lorr"" i, il.n to invoke Secllon 49gA of the lpC ,g"i;"t- ;;; n2tan.! and his famity in order to ,"ut iorpii"n:,"i wth the unreasonable demands of ,' ;i;. Consequenuy. this Coui has. i;.- "r; ";;,;, c_autioned against prosecuting the hrrb"r; ,;;";;; family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. "ri 'fo, 1 O1r isiic&r. .. .." rq&Br urtrr r- ,+ ,q, t':, ' -i ,1,/ ':/ - 7

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that dfif wott ?tl who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has t< en contemplated under Section 49BA of the lpC sh t ttd remain silent and forbear herself from makin3 a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. Thz is not the intention of our aforesaid observations bu. ve should not encourage a case like as in the pre; tnt one, where as a counterblast to the petition For dissolution of marriage sought by the first appel,t.tl husband of the second respondent herern a complaint under Section 49BA of the IpC is todgel by the latter. ln fact, the insertion of the said provlsrt,r is meant mainly for the protection of a woman whc is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home prima ity due to an unlawful demand for any propefty or valuable security in the form of dowry. Hov,e t. sometimes rt rs mlsused as in the present case. =r, 31 . Fufther, this Courf in preeti Gupta vs. Sfale of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 hetd that the ccrrts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dcat ng with these complaints and must take pragnt, tic realties into consideration white dealing v ith matimonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassmer t by the husband's close relatives who had been tivir c in different cities and never visited or rarely visiteo he place where the complainant resided would havc an entirely different complexion. The attegations ol he complainant are required to be scrutinized with <.r nt care and circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that he impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 fited by respondent t\t ).2 was initiated with ulterior motives to set e pet s. 1al scores and grudges against appellant No.1 anc. .tis family members i.e., appettant Nos.2 to 6 he-r in. Hence, the present case al hand fatts within catel try (7) of illustrative parameters hightighted in Bhajan t al. Therefore, the High Coud, in the present case, er ed in not exercising the powers available to it u,t ler Sec/rorr 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prev )nt abuse of the Courl's process by continuing he criminal prosecution against the appellants." Yo\ 8 09 ln the present case, the petitioner_accused No.2 is an elderly woman and the mother_in_law of the respondent No 2, and no specific or detaired ailegations of harassment are attributed to her in the record. A careful perusal of the charge sheet further reveals that the primary grievance of the respondent No.2 arises out of the conduct of the accused No.'l , which ultimately led her to lodge the present complaint. It is also evident from the charge sheet that, in order to substantiate the allegations therein, no independent witness has been examined by the investigating agency. l0 Making vague and generarized alregations in the context of matrimonial disputes, if not carefully scrutinized, may result in the misuse of the legal process and may encourage coercive tactics by the wife and/or her family members. Therefore, it rs incumbent upon the Courts to examine whether a prima facie case exists agarnst the husband and his family members before subjecting them to criminal prosecution under the offence under Section 49g_A of the IPC ln the absence of clear and specific allegations, implicating the petitioner_accused No.2 tn criminal 7 proceedings would amount to a sheer abuse of lre process of law

11. ln view of the facts and circumstar:es of the case including the settled principle of law laid 11, rwn by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the abov : decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the < cntinuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-ac: -rsed No.2 amounts to sheer abuse of process of law, tl'r refore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accu:; rd No 2 are liable to be quashed 12 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is i llowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-a< cused No.2 in C C No 3364 of 2024 on the file of the learned lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additior al Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District : LB Nagar, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous a1t rlications, if any, shall stand closed SDI A. JAYASREE ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad a B' Nagar' 2. The Station House omcerl poill statiott Saroornal'z r WPS' Rachakonda Qommiqsionerate tr#&.x, J t \

3. One CC to Sri. VEERA BABU GANDU, Advocate [OPUC]. 4. One CC to Sri. NAGESWAR RAO PUJARI, Advocate tOPUCl. 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

6. Two CD Copies TTS o '=,:-q'#idi d#.,.#*l*-l'&i'.-qsi',g;.-''st&ik"' { I I HIGH COURT DATED: 12t08t2025 / oYr ^!c\- \-:* \ ,* 4, j' x.I L' (,' a-* c u- '{... ORDER CRLP.No.11111of2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED ..r\ (