High Court · 2025

... Defacto comPlainanUR2 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P 'C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'#"tt"ro*Os oi Crrminar^petition' the High Court may be oleased to quash tn" r'tlli'Intl" c'c'rlo e?81 ol 2021 on the file of the lll ffi.iff,iui J;;ffi First ilass Magiitrate at waransal I.A. NO:2O F 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'#"tt"ttul"oJoi ctii'inl Fetition' the High Court may be pleased to stay all *"n""''oi"I""i*gt.' Cc N-o 3781 of 2021 on the file of the ,r Additionar Judiciai FIJ- crr..- Magistrate at warangal against the plIni";"r"nli.ln, p.naing Jitpot't of the above criminal Petition' ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,upon.perusingtheMemorandumof -Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Grounds of Criminal sri K.Venumadhav, AdvocaL"ioiit. p"titioner and the Ms s.Madhavi, Assistant public piosecutor on o"["it .r the Responden-t No'1, and of Ms Mounika' Advocate representing o"'ilL Lth'f or Sii r'R Sunil Kumar' Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ,: .|' : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMI NAL PETITION No.8 857 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioner-accused No..l seeking to quash the proceedings against him in c'c No'37g1 of 2021 0n the fire of the learned L Additionar Judiciar First Class Magistrate at Warangal. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under section 4gB-A of the rndian penar code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') Iearned counsel

2. Heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, Ms. K.Mounika, learned counsel Iearned counsel for respondent complainant and Mrs S.Madhavi, Iearned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. perused the record for the petitioner, representing Mr. K.R.Sunil Kumar, No.2-de facto 3' The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of the 2nd respondent- de facto comprainant. The gist of the compraint is that the de facto comfrainant was marrie<r to the petition er on 21 .0g.2021 . Atthe time of marriage, certain amount of dowry rnras given. They lived happily for 4 or 5 days. As the de facfo complainant was found to have excess fat near the spinal cord, the petitioner and his parents, suspecting that she was l i ) I I 1 I I I I l i I 2 suffering from some ailment' sent her to her parental home and informed her parents to send her back only after she had undergone appropriate medical treatment. Despite consulting multiple doctors' no ailment came into light. When the de facto complainant's parents informed the same to the petitioner and his parents' they demanded for divorce or to buy a sports car. Though a panchayat was held in the presence of elders' the accused insisted for divorce, craiming that the de facto complainant was suffering from some ailment' lt is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the 4. petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case by the de factocomplainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between them and to extract money' The de faclo complainant was married to the petitioner by suppressing the fact that she is suffering with Scoliosis. When the petitioner came to know about the same' he advised her to undergo proper medical treatment' for which' she left to her parental home at Warangal and started demanding Rs'50'00'0001' The petitioner never took any dowry from the de facfo complainant's parents at the time of marriage' nor did he demand a sports car' ln fact' the marriage expenses were shared by both the families on mutual understanding. lt is also contended that except bald allegations' no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner' Thus' he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner 3 () 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as learned Assistant public prosecutor in one voice contended that the petitioner has harassed the de facto complainant alleging that she is suffering with some airment and demanded her parents to buy a sports car for him. Unable to bear such harassment, the present complaint has been rodged by the de facfo comprainant. lt is further contended that arl the a'egations reve'ed in the compraint as we, as in the charge sheet are subject matter of triar, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition. 6 For the sake of convenience, Section 498_4 of lpC is extracted hereunder: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty._ Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shatt be punii"a *n imprisonment for a term which may "it"rii"-ii*").,ir" ,no shall also be tiabte to fine. Exptanation._ ror tne pliplotrJ or mi" section, "cruelty" means_(3)any wilful conduct which'is of such a nalure as is likely to drive the woman to commft s;ic;d; or b .grave injury or danger to tife, timb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(!)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a G* to *rini'ilJr'L, ury person related to her to meet any unla$/fut Aeiana i, .ny propefty or valuable security or is on account of failiire- nv- ner or any person related lo her to meet such demand. 4 i' _l ln the judgment of Sfafe of Haryana and others v' CH'Bhaian Lal

7. and othersl ,the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: The following categories of cases can be stated by way of itt;';;r;i;;;i;t in tie extraordinary power under Afticte 22-6 or 'irJ"irn"riii,i p"wers under se;tion 482 cr'P'C' can- be 'itli"a"iii'ii [nL iign couft either to prevent ab.use-.of the couior otherwise to secure the ends.of iustice' ;;;;;;ry iiZiZii ti iii il oe possro/e to tav down anv precise' cteartv ';;;;;;" r';;'";i;iiitiv cn anneti sed and infl ex ibte s uid.etines or and to'give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of i;;;;i." 'iZii"t iniin such p6wer shoutd be exercised' (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information ", the complaint, even if they are taken. at thei face 'iL"ii i; their entiritv do not prim.a racie ;:i;';;;";";;;l;i constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the attegations in the Ftst tnformation Repoft and noldis.close 'iher materials, it iny, accompanying the F'l R' ;"' ;;;;;;; ;t;' b.y- :otice ""niJ""i iai, section i56(1) of the code except under an within ihe puNiew of section 1 55(2) or the Zi,ri", Code; iu stiivins in inve stigation . "rZ"uZ,gitriii "ffenLe, 1o l G) Where the uncontrovened atlegations made in,,the FIR or 'Jl*pirini ,ra the evidence cotlectid in supporl of the same do nof disc/ose the commtsston of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a ';;";;;;-;;' itieie"out constitute ontv a non-cosnizabte ZhY;;;';" iiiiis"ti'is permitted bv a potice orficer without an order of a Magistrate as' iontemplaied under Section 155(2) of the Code; (51 Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so 'ii"iri ini inierinuv improoable on the bas'Is of which no prudent person can ever reach a iust conclusion that there is 'sufficieni ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in. any of the p,iovisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a 'criminal proceeding is instituted) to the . institution and continuan'ce of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific I tsvz scc 1cr;1 +za ( 5 provtsion in the Code or the concerned .Act, providing effica c iou s red ress for the jriev.a;".; (7) Where a crim,inal proceeding is manifesfly attended with mata ride and/or ihere i;.;;;;;;:;;.s is maticiousry :;,;;X2l"y:!r"!un.,io,mititr""ii,'ii',1'"r,,gvenseance .ro ,"r"oru,nlril!"with a view to spite him dle b;;;;; ;;2,,;"gg r"v ed p a fl y ; -

8. ln the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and othersy. Sfafe of Telangana and anothel, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.1B, 31 and 32 held that: "lg. A bare perus.al of the FIR shows that the altegalions made by respondent l:;,!-.":: rrsr"..ir;"L;Iiius other rhan "1,3:{{?"'?1,:i::!'::'. ruo t iaiastrii i",' lid that appelant ti?le ;; ",;;, * :!,:"!!:i: :i ;z::;;!3^ #;,,",::i","ii '!i|3'"i,,'!J"'i,ssi19lr ste i"" "r""",.i",i!, oned the time, :ii:;,:fij;ih;;'#:",";"',,{''fJo!",.i'lil|'*y";::X:

31. Fufther, ,no ,"1r,:iJ:,Z"Z,lf"!.^n:_,0,*",ti"-ihi"i"iio,tobeextremety ":!,,!,frgeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand tr\;ii**si,:"".;i:,,::!;:;;6:.rl;;::ii'{Vi; n^r,,Js",o""li+,lizil;r;,:;iZ"l'l:nf i:i,il,'ii:; and never visited,_9r ,"r"ry iliii',ti;,'o;;:"" where the comptainant resid1d ..woutd nZii 1,, ".ii*U different comptexion. The ailegations or tn" ,"qrn"a to be scruti,ized with greal r"r" ";;-r;;;;;;;;i;; "Zr[tinu7i.,ur" 1? yr, therefore, a.re of the opitlion that the impugned FtR No 82 or 2022 rired .bv ,""poiiuit iiri wZs initiated with utterior motives to settte p"rionii-"iorii Zni"lruoges against appeilant No.1 and his famity mu.nui i i ," iipZ,iant Nos.z to a herein. Hence. the nresent.case at hand faitts,wihiin category 17) r.a t ry e p a ra m e t e rs n ij ii s;i;; ; ;;' ;;;;; ;', iL a r r h e,ero re, g,f i t r the High Court, in the..present iu"u, "oi il)oiexercising tne powers available to it under Section 482 CriC and thereby faited to prevent abus^e-or nu ciiis pro"Zs"s'Ly"continuing the criminal prosecution against the appeilants.,l - -' " 1t.yt ' zoza tNsc gs3 6 (l

9. ln numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court' while dealing with similarcasesheldthatmakingvagueandgeneralisedallegationsduring 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 to invoke Section 498-4 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 prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his familY members'

10. In the present case' admittedly' there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.'|. The de factocomplainant left for her parental home within 3 to 4 days of her marriage, however, the present complaint was lodged on 06.12.2021i.e., with a delay of three months' The reason for such delay remained unexplained. On a perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and charge sheet, even if they are taken on face value' no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioner-accused No.1, except stating that he has harassed the de facfo complainant stating she is suffering with some ailment and has demanded to buy a sports car. The de facfo complainant has not provided any specific detailsordescribed.anyparticularinstanceofharassmentmetedoutby 7 the petitioner-accused No.1 . Hence, it appears that onry to setfle personal scores and grudges against the petitioner_accused No..l , the present compraint was rodged against him, and therefore, the petitioner- accused No.1 cannot be subjected to prosecution, merely basing on the bald averments of harassment.

11. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments referred to above, the petitioner cannot be dragged into criminar prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against him. Hence, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner_accused No.1 in C.C.No.37B1 of 2021 on the file of the learned ilr Additionar Judiciar First crass tr/ragistrate at Warangal. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR A /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 I!',u t]t Additionat Judiciat First Class Magistrate at Warangat. 2. The Siation House Officer, WpS potice S!;i6;, W"rangaioistri"t 3. Two CCs to the pubric prosecutor, High Caiirt f.;lh" siiie J reLngana at 4. One CC to Sri K.Venumadhav. Advocate IOPUCI 5. One CC to Sri K.R.Sunil Kumar, Advocat'" tOpU'Ct 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] NVB/gh W i I i I i i I i I I I I j I , I \ HIGH COURT DATED:30 tOTt2OZs I :-.-- ..^-;i rJ^ $( -.1 t; 21 tlJ6 2E * sparc aEo. ORDER CRLP.No.88SZ of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ?'