The High Court · 2025

High Court, Hyderabad. Through PS, Khammam (R), Telangana.

2. Bonothu Vasundhara, Wo,Vankudothu Kiran Naik, Aged 25 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Naidupeta Village, Khammam. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 ott Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the tligh Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3 in CC No.2870 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble ll Addl. Junior Civil "udge-cum-ll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam and pass l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the l''ligh Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the petitioners/Ac,cused No.2 and 3 in CC No.2B70 ol 2022 on the file of Hon'ble ll Addl. Junior rSivil Judge-cum-ll Addl. Judicial Nilagistrate of First Class, Khammam CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9033 OF 2022 Between:

1. Malothu Rajini, Wo.Malothu Balaraju, Aged 36 years, Occ. Housewife, Rlo. 1 1 -25-367, Kothawada, Warangal, Telangana.

2. Malothu Balaraju, S/o.Malothu Bhadrunayak, Aged 44 yearr;, Occ. Agriculture, Rlo.1 1 -25-367, Kothawada, Waranga[, Telangana. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 & 6 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court, Hyderabad. Through PS, Khammam (R), Telangana.

2. Bonothu Vasundhara, Wo-Vankudothu Kiran Naik, Aged 25 years, Occ Housewife, R/o.Naidupeta Vitlage, Khammam. RESPONDENT ...DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No-5 and 6 in CC No.2870 of 2022 on the file of Hon,ble ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-ll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammams LA. NO: 2OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of C:.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the petitioners/accused No.5 and 6 in CC No.2870 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-ll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam and pass These Petitions coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of MS. R. SANDHYA, Advocate REPRESENTING SRI NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI ,Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Criminal Petitions and Mrs. S. I\tradhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 in all the criminal Petitions- The Court made the following: ORDER ,,* I I -i L ii_it ,5 I.1I t $ t ,€I {{ ,f; E E !g {s 1$ i* f 'i & :rE 4 :ft .t?{ T .I 3 E ':4_ , .,$ i 'rl .. -l i i, I F I: i , THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINA LPETITION Nos.9015 9025 and 9033 of 2022 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal petitions are filed under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in c.c.No.2870 of 2oz2 on the fire of the il Additionar Junior civil Judge-cum-il Additionar Judiciar Magistrate of First crass at Khammam, pertaining to crime No.270 of 2o22of p.s. Khammam Rurar, registered for the offences under sections 4gg-A and 5116 of the rndian Penal code (for short 'rpc') and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196.1 (for sho( ,the Act,). 2' since all the three criminar petitions are arising out of c.c.No.2g70 of 2022, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common counsel representing

3. Heard Ms. R.Sandhya, learned Sri Nageshwar Rao pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs S.Madhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondentState. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record 4 The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents, petitioner_ accused No.4 is the brother, petitioner_accused No.S is the sister of F E TU ,E H [& H i?l :.1,i' t':':l .1 i: 'ii 2 accused No.1 The petitioner-accused No 6 is the husband of petitioner- accused No.5.

5. The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant was married to accused No'1 on 19'06 2021 and it was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. They lived happily for few days' Thereafter' on the instigation of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, accused No'1 started harassing the de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and also abused her in filthy language' A panchayat was held before the elders, however, accused No 1 did not attend the same' lt is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the 6. present case has been registered against the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 6 only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between lhe de facto complainant and accused No l lt is contended that the petitioners herein are staying away from lhe de facto complainant and accused No.1 , therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for themtoharassthedefactocomplainant.ltisalsocontendedthatexcept bald allegations against them, no specific overt acts are attributed to 3 7 ' lt is further contended by the rearned counser that the present complaint was filed in 2022, whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed in 2021 an<J if there was really harassment from the date of marriage, the de facto complainant should have complained much earlier. The reason for suc:h delay also remained unexprained. rn cases of matrimoniar disputes and when there is a deray of over three months in rodging the compraint, the rnvestigating Officer may conduct preliminary enquiry. However, in the present case, basing on the allegations in the complaint, without conducting any preliminary inquiry, the lnvestigating officer has registered the present crime against the petitioners on the very same day.

8. ln support of her contention, learned counsel relred on the judgment of Latitha Kumari v. Government of lJ.pl , wherein. the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:_ "120.6 As to what tvne and,,in which cases pretiminary inquiry i:; to be conducted wilt deoend.on the. facts "ii-iiil."iir"es of each case. rhe catesory of cases in which ;;;i;;;;';;;;;;"iay be made are as (a) Matri m o nial di sp utes/f am i I y drspu,es. (b) Commercial offences. (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases. fel Cases where there.^is _abnormal delay/taches in initiating criminal prosecution, .for example, orii-,i.-iontns, detay in i|'i';i.,:'" matter without "rti'iii"tiifi' "io,lining rhe realoas Thus, she prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. ' 1zo t+) z scc I t, l, i' t., .i i. ,, ii: H. E.I rFl ii" t I ITJi, -:,.'11' :a.1:,. i.lf i \:. "!n 1". *:..,sri i:' ,:., '1. r'::it t,, ,,I ':l .j ,.! .l'.i id+ *BX$, {ffii tf#!rfi '{P" .r1 . ,:-. .+ ' :, 1:; ..,: '. !E ; -lt. ri +l-: irii+. :ill t$#, :fl# '( ,i: 4

9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor a, contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto comprainant from the date of her marriage with accused No..t and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been rodged. rt is further contended that alr the aregations revered 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, she prayed to dismiss the petitions. 10' For the sake of convenience, Section 4gB-A of rpc is extracted hereunder: 498A. Husband or relative subjecting her to cruetty._ of husband of a woman Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty sha be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extena rc- tniJe"l",ir" ,ra shalt also be tiabte to fine. Exptanaion._ For the purplsi of tnis section, 'cruetty', means_.(p)any wilful conduct wh;ich'is;i such a nature as is tikety to drive the woman to cootii su-iclae o, to caus:.grave injury or danger to life, timb or heatth (whether mental or physicat) of the woman, or(!)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a G* n un, person related to her to meet any untavvfut Oeiand i, any property or valuabte security or is on account or faitire tf ner or any person related to her to meet such demand. 11. ln the judgment of Sfate of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lat and others2, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held as fol{ows: "o"rirg 'i'Jr'o, ' o9z scc 1cri,1 az6 5 ,,,!!,e_ l?llowi!15 categories of cases can be stated by way ot t ustration wherein the extraoroinary piierlnili"i,tii",zza o, the inherent powers under s""ti'on iai ;, i'ci,."" "", o" th9 Hish couft either b i;r;;'r;;rei-or tne ?y?::"a -nv process of any Coun or othcrwise .to """iri iiu'uiii"oi )stice, '!:i,::,'"tr{;il:,::,i,}il!:^,,:l"t";;i;i;ii',"i,Jl'h"",v ,1ot1i",yiii"""ii,Z";;'r,;:{::":r;:,:lLilf :f ';f ,i:!;::ill:"; cases wherein such power shoutd te exerciiJ:"'r"uu (!) Where the allegations made in the First tnformation Report or the compTaint, eve.n if they are taken at their face vatue .and accepted in their "rtiiii' ai"riiir,i,irZ, rr"i" constitute any offence or make oit , "i"i Zirii"i ,r" (2) Where the alleqations in 'oih",;,t";;;;";;2';";';;:;il2;::;',;:t";.f i,.;::!;,#i1" a^ cognizable offence, justitytng_ an investigation by police ontcers under Section ts6ti) ot tnu Coou',6l1ii"pt]n,l"i, un order of a Magistrate within in e purview of Section l SS(2) of the Code; accused; t\ttt (!) Wlfr? the uncontrovefted .attegations made in the flR or comptaint and the evidence .ota-ala ii sllpin'ri',i."r"i" oo oiiiL'iii"ii",h, no-t disctose the commjssion or case against the accused; " lh.e allegations in the FIR do not constit, e a offence but constitute ont i n u e s t i s a t i o n i s ;; ;; ;i ;Z ni"'{, i ! 3i;i3l lr,fl! :, a Magistrate as contemptated ird", s""ii,n"ti'sl") (4) Where, cognizable offence, no an order of of the Code; "ry " ,,." (!) Wh,ere the altegations ,u1..i! the FtR or comptaint arc so absurd.and inheren,y improbabte ", ii;";;ri;',Zif,r,inirn ro p^ructent person can ever reach a just "";"G;iili,,i,i,* " suntcrcnt ground for proceeding against ther""r"uj;,-. (^u!^.*,!::f th:r: is gn express tegat bar engrafted in anv at the l:?:,:,?!" of the Code or the concerned Act (under whijh a cnm,nat proceeding is instirubd) ti" ni' ,t"iiutillr,, "ra \i::;Ii::"f "*,,::oyc.e^eoiys3nan,*nu,utni)Z''i{'a"sptciric , -:...-,",, ,,, Lrtc t ooe or. the concerned Act. provtding etrtcacious redress for the grievance (7) Where a criminal Droceeding is manifes y atlended tryith i;! ;,,!:; ;;{ : ; I x.,i :,,:r :, * o ".. y ", on the accu sed-;";' ;;;;' r' :?':ve .wreaking vensea nce p"r"orit-griilu'.' 'u t a 'tt€w Io spife him due to-prit'ate "na "i tiZ iggri;ria ;"lii,, i ij' i i * i,,i izio u t:. l, - I .l i i I I I ,t: l- iff: li,l 6 12- ln the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. stafe of Telangana and anothef, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.31 and 32 held that "31. Further, this Court in preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) T SCC 667 held that the coufts have to be extremety careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Ihe altegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided woutd have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the comptainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. Wq therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.g2 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with urterior motiyes fo serf/e personal scores and grudges against appe ant No.1 and his famity members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (l) of iltustrative parameters hightighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section ttg2 CrpC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Courl,s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appeltants.,'

13. ln numerous cases, the Hon'bre supreme court, whire dearing with similar cases held that making vague and generarised afiegations during 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 famiry. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke section 498-4 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek r 2oza INSC 9s3 i' ;i: l-i ll, ii4 il,i! |i.ll'iri'i, ;i, ii[ ]ri iili, li, ,ii, .riii, ;ii*t' JHF, .iff' 7 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 famiry members before prosecuting the husband and his family members.

14. ln the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the de facto comprainant and accused No.1 and it was also an arranged marriage. A perusar of the FtR wourd indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been ma<le against the petitioners herein, other than stating that they instigated accused No.i in harassing the de facto comprainant by demanding more crowry. None of the petitioners have been attributed any specific rore in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. Though the marriage had happened in the year 2021, the present compraint was rodged in the year 2022. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. rn cases of matrimoniar disputes and when there is a deray of over 3 months in lodging the complaint, the lnvestigating Officer may conduct preliminary enquiry. However, in the present case, basing on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, without conducting any preliminary enquiry, the lnvestigating officer has registered the FIR against the petitioners herein, on the very same day, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'bre supreme court in Laritha Kumari,s case (supra). :i1 ,ff :: l I I I I I .lr. ..r,i .,,iL' ' ,rifi I ii. ; t,. -llBi , ,,''Hi !iFli i$il i,l, :xi- ::{\:. ...1,. .,.: l.:,r.ii ..: tal . ,tii J} :$ . tRi \ 8 .\: 15'ltisalsoanadmittedfactthatthepetitionersherein,whoarethe family members of accused No'1, are staying away from the family of de facto complainant and accused No'1 The de facto complainant and accused No.1 have set-up a separate family at tt/adhya Pradesh and none of the family members of accused No'1 are staying with them' The petitioners cannot be subjected to prosecution' merely basing on the bald averments of harassment.

16. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments referred to above, the petitioners cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them' Hence' the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed'

17. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed' quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 6 in C C'No'2870 of 2Q22on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam' I t I I ! t I i I I I i i. l1 I I i, i i j' * I Gt & i ,iJ 1'J [H ffi,itit, *lii ,:i . :i. .?; Pending miscellaneous aPP lications, if anY, shall SD/- A. stand olosed- REENIVASA REDDY AS STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 L 4 E The ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at The Station House Officer, Khammm ( R) Police Station, Khammam Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court at Hyderabad [OUT] . 3 CCs to SRl. NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI Advoca - Two CD Copies. te [OPUC] PM/she,e HIGH COURT DATED:'18/03/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.9015, 9025 & 9033 of 2022 i-ll t :; l4 t o t+o t 1 0 ,luru ZW { Pi Lcl .'.1 1 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS )l {