The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. K. Bhavani,, by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the SHO, WPS, South East Zone, Hyderabafd /o Raavi Narasimha R/o. H.No. 16-11-1 Reddy, Aged about 22 years,0cc. 6lclcl32, TapasviAbode, Flat No Nagar, Old tMalakpet, Telangana ... RESPON DENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT Petition under stated in the [Vlemorand be pleased to Quash the 2024 on the file of Wom now pending before the Hyderabad, for the offen n 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may harge Sheet No. 186 of 2024 filed in Crime No. 220 of Police Station, South East Zone, Hyderabad, which is Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings pursuant to the Charge Sheet filed in Crime No. 220 of 2024 on the file of Women Police Station. South East Zone, Hyderabad, now pending before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences under Section 498-A of the lndian penai Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in so far as the Petitioners are concerned, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition, This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the tVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K pRATIK REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr V.Jithender Rao Additional public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and none appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEV! EADA c ti[n L TI N o.{ R: This criminar petition is fired by the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 6 herein seeking to quash the charge sheet in c'c'No.186 0t 2024 0n the fire of the rearned XV Additional chief Metropolitan Matgistrate, Nampally, Hyderadad, registered for the offence under Section 49g_A of the lndian penal Code (for short "lPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 (for short "Dp Act, 1961,).

2. Heard Sri K.pratik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeramaila, rearned Additionar Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 _ State. 3' Learned counser for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing omnibus afiegations and that there are no specific overt acts attributed to them. He further submitted that the petitioners never harassed the de facto complainant, and that there are no specific allegations against any of the petitioners, except that accused No..r, used to consume alcohol and beat the de facfo complainant. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 4 On the other hand, the learned Additional public prosecutor 2 submitted that the allegations refer to the harassment caused by the family members of the accused, stating that accused No.1, i.e., the \ husband of the de facto complainant, along with his family members, used to demand additional dowry and drove the de facto complainant out of their house. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused lhe record. The recitals of the charge sheet and the statements of LW1 indicate only a single-line aveiment against the petitioners, to the effect that they used to demand additional dowry. Except for this, there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners. They are merely the family members and relatives of the husband of the de facfo complainant. The de facto complainant appears to have implicated all the family members without attributing any specific overt acts or incidents of harassment, which amounts to abuse of the process of law. The Apex Court has held in Dara Lakshmi Narayana y. State of Telanganal and the said case is referred in Rajesh Chaddha Vs. State of lJttar Pradesh2, the relavant paragraphs extracted as under: "A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic r (2025) 3SCC 735 2 2025 sCC Online SC 1094 3 dispufes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particu'tarised allegations cannot form fhe basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevenf misuse of tegat provisions and the legat process and avoid ,rne"L"" ary harassment of innocent family members. ln the present caie, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of 'the famity of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an aOiie of the process of the law in the absence of specific atldgations made against each of them." '

6. Therefore, in light of the aforementioned discussion and relying upon the cited decisions, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

7. Accordingly, the criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused herein in c.c.No.186 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Matgistrate, Nampatly, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed' 8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. sD/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY - AsstsrANT REGISTRAR 6/ SECTION OFFICER /,TRUE COPY// The XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistlatg. \amp_ally, rhe Station HousJo-tti;;;, i;!9":station WPS'-S-qt1th East Zone o; cCl; sRa- ( iRAiik nio-oy Advocate.loPuc] Two CC to SRl. puelr'C ijnOSfCUfOR High court for the state tetlngana at HYderbad [OUT] Two CD CoPies Hyderabad , Hyderabad \ To, 1 2 w / r/ e HE1 q C)o ,i ? I ilN ?[5 *: I"i .tr '.lf HIGH COURT DATED i2711012025