High Court · 2025

2. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P,C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Proceedings in C.C.No.613 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Siddipet. LA. NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of cr"iminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further Proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in C.C No.613 ot 2O22 on the file of Judicial First Class Magrstrate at Siddipet. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of cnminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri p prabhakar Reddy Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No !* and of Sri D. Raghavulu, Advocate for the Respondent No l- The Court made the following: OROER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8458 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.613 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Siddipet The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act') 02 Heard Sri P Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7, Sri D Raghavulu learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.S Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for tlre State Perused the record

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No 1 with the respondent No.1 was solemnized about 12 years ago. During the wedlock she gave birth to a female child. Ever since the marriage of the 1'r respondent, her husband used to harass her physically 2 and mentally and the petitioners herein rnstigated her husband. ln that connection several panchayaths were held and in the panchayath her husband was reprimanded and inspite of it he did not mend his ways lt is also alleged that her parents took her to her in laws house, but he did not allow her to enter into the house and also abused her in filthy language. With the above allegations a report was given by the '1'r respondent before the Siddipet I Town police statron and the case was registered as crime No..l 56 of 2OZ2 for the offences under Section 4gB-A of lpC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act 04 Learne,l ccunsel for petitioners subr.ritteci that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that the allegations mentioned in the complaint and charge sheet do not make out a case against the petitioners under section 498-4 of lpC and sections 3 and .4 of the Act There are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein with regard to harassment for additional dowry Except stating that harassment of additional dowry n0 specific instances were given and she has not even mentioned the additional dowry amount. Only bald and 3 vague allegations are made against the petitioners. Further the accused No.1 and respondent No.1 are teachers working in different places living together and they are not continuously living with petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 who are parents of the accused. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the father of the accused No.1 , the petitioner-accused No.4 is sister of the accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.5 is husband of sister of accused No 1 and petitioner-accused No.6 is the paternal uncle of the accused No.1 and petitioner-accused No.7 is the wife of the uncle of the accused No.1 and they are residing separately from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.1 . The petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 7 never interfered in the matrimonial rssues of respondent No.1 and the accused No.1. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.1 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not dtsclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and section 4 of the Act.

05. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Preeti Gupta & 4 Another y. Sfate of Jharkhand & Another 7, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia held at paragraph Nos. 7 , 11, 12,27, 30 and 36 held that: 7 /t was asserf ecl that there is no specfic allegation in the entire complainl against both the appellanfs. Ihe sfafemenfs of prosecution witnesses PWI to pW4 were also recorcled along with the statement of the complainant. None of the prosecutlon wlfnesses had stated anytlting against the appellants. These appellants had very ctearly stated in t,is appeal that they had never visited Ranchi The appellants a/so stated that they had nev=r interfered witlt the internal affairs of the complainanl aiid her husband. Accor-din1; to them there r,yas no question of any interference because the appellants had been living rn different cities for a number of year.s. 11 The contpiairtanl could not dispute thttt appellant no.1 was a permanent resident liuing with her husband at Navasari, Surat, Gujarat for the last more than seven years and the appellant no.2 was permanent resident of Goregaon. fi/laharashlra They had n(tve r spent any time with respondent no.2. 12. According to the appellants, they are nc,t the rcsrdcnfs of Ranchi and if they ant compelled to attend the Ranchi Cc>urt repeatedly then iltat would lead Io insurmountable harassment anrl inconvenience to the appeilants as uzeli asr kr the contplainant. I 2010(6) supreme 112 5

27. Admittedly, appellant no.1 is a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband for more than seven years. Similarly, appellant na.2 is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharasthra. They have never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with respondent no.2 and her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband's relatives. Ihis seems to be the only basrs to file this complaint against the appellants Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of Ihe process of law. 30 lt is a matter of common expelience that rnost of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over Invral rssues without proper deliberations. We come across a large nurnber of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the numbcr of gcnuinc cases of dowry harassment are a/so a matter of serious concern. 36. When the facts and circu mstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigrnarole of a criminal trial. ln the interest of justice, we cleem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court rs set asrde Consequently, this appeat is atlowed. 6 06 Learned counsel for the respondent No 1 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would cone out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court an<i prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition 07 Learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State also prayed to dismiss this Crimrnal petition. 08 A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint discloses that accused No .1 and respoFldent No.1 are teachers and they were not continuously living together with accused Nos 2 and 3 who are mother and father in law of respondent No l and there is nothing specific except stating that accused No 2 supported the accused No. 1, which does not constitute the alleged offences and the petitioners_ accused Nos.4 to 7 never lived with accLlsed No.1 and respondent No l in a shared household atanytime and they were living separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No 1 Therefore, it is clear that tt-re petitioners- to 7 were residing separatel;, from the accused Nos.2 accused No.1 and respondent l.lo 1 7 09 ln Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Stafe of Telangana and anothel wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph Nos.18, 25 and 31 held "18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any pafticular instance of harassmenf. She has a/so not mentioned the time. date, place, or manner in whiclt the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore thc FIR lacks concrete and precise alleg atron s. 25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a crimrnal case arising out of a natrintonial dtspute, wihout specific allegations indicating thetr active involvement should be nrpped rn lhe bud. lt is a well-recognised fact, borne out of ludicial experience, that thereis oflen a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or parlicularised allegations cannol fornt lhe basis for criminal prosecution. Courts musl exercise caution in such cases Io prevent mlsuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of tnnocent family members. ln the presenf case, appellant Nos 2 io 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No. t have been living in different cities and have not resided in the AIR 2075 SUPREME COURT 17] 8 matrimonial house of appellant No 1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the sane would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific altegations made against each of thent. 31 . Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. Slate tf Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 hetd that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must tal..e pragmatic realties into consideration while deating with matnmonial cases The allegations of harassment by the husbancl's c/ose relalives tut,o had been living in diffcrent cities anci never visited or rarely visited the place w|tere the complarnant resided would have an enttrely different complexion The allegations of the complatnattt are requrred to be scrutinizcd wi t great care and circumspection. "

10. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific details or descrrptrve particulars of nstances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or parliculansed allegations cannct form basis for criminal prosecution.

11. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutrnized. will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arrn twisting 9 tactics by a wife and/or her family Sometimes' recourse is taken to invoke Section 4984 of the IPC against 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 any pnma facte case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 7 cannot be dragged rnto crimrnal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them' 12 ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case rncluding the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Suprenre Court of lndia in the above decisions' thrs Court rs of the corrstdered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings agarnst the petitioners-aclused Nos 2 to 7 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings agarnst the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 7 are liable to be quashed 13 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings agarnst the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 7 10 T in C.C.No 613 of 2OZZ on the file of Judiciat Frrst Class filagistrate, at Siddipet, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous apprlcations, if any, shall stand closed SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //.RUE coPY/' I ,Ec+lbN oFFlcER To,

1. The Judicial First Class tvlagistrate at Siddipet' 2'TheStationHouseofficer'siddipetlTownPoliceStlrtrr:n.siddipetDistrict' 3. One CC to Sri. P Prabhakar Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri D Raghavulu, Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for th() State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies (ityswT YK c HIGH COURT I DATED: zBtO4tZOZs --.'_::-:-r\- i r :'- S rl i--. :., '(' a) c- z.' !k \'i') (- : z () ORDER CRLP.No.8458 of 2OZ2 O3 sEPM ) ':(.. \--!.',,.' ,i\ CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED qc.\rRA Kr_ As?