The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 OF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pieaseO to call for the records and quash the proceedings against the Fetitioners/Accused Nos. 3 and 5 n C.C.No.281 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Xlll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at lrilanoran.ian complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. t.A. NO:2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 OF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High cou( may be pi"r."o to stay of all further proceedings against th-e Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 5 including presence of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 and 5 in c.c.No.281 of 20.,|6 on the file of the court of the Xlll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad' This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri KoNGALA \ lvoHAN GoUD, Advocate for the petitioners and sRl M RAMACHANDRA REDDy, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL P ETITION N o.13048 ot 2024 ORDER: This criminal Petition is fired under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, 2023 (previousry section 482 of code of criminal Procedure, 1973) by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and S seeking to quash the proceedings against them in c.c.No.2B1 ot 2016 pending on the file of the learned Xlll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Manoranjan comprex, Nampaily, Hyderabad (for short ,trial court'), registered for the offences under section 498-4 of the rndian Penal Code (for short 'lpC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short lhe Act').

2. Heard Mr. Kongala Mohan Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. [\4.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. rnspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.5 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.3. According to the compraint, the allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 is that they have instigated accused No..l in harassing the 2 de facto complainant physically and mentally to bring additional dowry. when the de facto complainant expressed her parent's inability, all the accused harassed her without providing her proper food'

4.ltiscontendedbythelearnedcounselforpetitionersthatthe petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de faclo complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonialdisputesbetweenthedefacfocomplainantandaccused No.1 . The present complaint was lodged by the de facfo complainant after six years of her marriage with accused No'1' The reason for such delayinlodgingihecomplaintremainedunexplained.ltisfurther contended that when lhe de facto complainant demanded for a separate residence, as accused No.1 denied for the same, she lodged the present complaintagainsttheaccused.Thepetitionershereinarestayingaway from the de facto complainant and accused No'1' Except bald I allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners'

5.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed lhe de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 andbeingunabletobearthesame,thepresentcomplainthasbeen lodged. lt is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the --;---7 3 complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial. and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 498_4 of lpC is extracted hereunder: 498A. Husband or retative of subiecting her to cruelty.- husband of a woman Whoever, being the husband or the retative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruetty sha be punished with imprisonment for a term which may ertend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-(g)any witful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or heatth (whether mental or physical) of the woman; orl!)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coereing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any propedy or valuable security or is on account of faiture by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. t ln the judgment of Sfafe of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lat

7. and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: following categories of cases can be stated by way of ..Th9 illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Aftiile 2i6 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.p.C. can be exercised by the, High Couft either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to tay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficienfly channelised and inftexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive tist of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie I too: scc lcri; +26 .'_ 4 constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the altegations in the First lnformation Reporl and 'oiher materials, if any, accompanying the F l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, iustifying an investigation by police officeis under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a l\lagistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in .the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do nof dlsc/ose the commission of any olfence and make out a case agalnsf the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a 'cognizabte offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offlence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Mlagistrate as contemptated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so 'absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a iust conclusion that there is sufficient grourtd for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legat bar engrafte.d in. any piovisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a 'criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Cade or the concerned Ac\ providing efficacious redress Ior the grievance of the aggrieved p,afty; .o.f (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with -mata fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. ln the judgmenl of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v' Sfafe

8. of Telangana and anothef, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.18, 25, 31 and 32 held that: "18. A bare perusat of the F/R shows that the allegations made by respondent No.Z are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.z to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not t lou+ ntsc 953 5 provided any specific details or described any paiicular instance of harassment. She has also not mention;d' the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR tacks concrete and precise allegations.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a crimin-al case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvemient should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well_recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to impticate a 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 particularised allegations cannot form lhe basls tor criminal prosecution. Couds must exercise caution in such cases lo prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent faiily.members. tn the present case, appellant Nos_2 to 6, who are t'he members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial iouse of appeltant No 1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the taw in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

31. Fufther, this Court in preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the coufts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and musl take pragmatic realties into consideration witile deating with matrimonial cases. fhe allegations of harassment 6v the husband's close relatives who had been living in diffeleni cities and never visited or rarely visited the ptace wheire the complainant resided would have an entirety different complexion. The allegations of the coniptainant ari required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.B2 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initited witn ulteri?! motlves to se[/e personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e_, appettanT Nosl2 to a herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (l) illy.str.atlle parameters hightighted in Bhajan Lal. Th-erefore, ?.f the High Court, in the present case, erred ii not exercisinq the powers available to it under Section 4A2 CrpC and th6reby failed to prevent abuse of the Courf ,s process by continuing the cri m i n al p rosecuti on aga i n st the a p pe ants.,'

9. In numerous cases, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases held that making vague and generarised ailegations during I I 6 r-. matrimonialconflicts,ifnotscrutinized,willleadtothemisuseoflegal processesandanencouragementforuseofarmtwistingtacticsbyawife 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 husbandandhisfamilymembersbeforeprosecutingthehusbandandhis family members.

10. ln the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to themarriagebetweendefactocomplainantandaccusedNo.,l'Asseen from the complaint, it is evident that the marriage o'f de facto complainant withaccusedNo.lwasperformedataboutsixyearspriortothedateof lodging complaint. lf really there was harassment, the de facto I cqmplainantwouldhavecomplainedmuchearlier.Abareperusalofthe record would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners herein. The de facto complainant has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassmentorcrueltyordemandofdowryagainstthepetitioners- accusedNos.3and5,exceptstatingthattheyhaveinstigatedaccused No.1 in harassing her and also demanded additional dowry' lt is also not the case of the de facfo complainant that any dowry article was handed over to the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5' Hence, .the petitioners- 7 accused Nos.3 and 5 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial especially when there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment for or in relation to demand of dowry against them

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 in C.C.No.2B1 o'f 2016 pending on the file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SDl- T.SRINIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR I I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan tt/lagistrate at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Shahinayathgunj police station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRI KONGALA MOHAN GOUD Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies GR/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:13108t202s :..\ -. S r^, .::.:\ ' (.. \ 10 sEP 206 '?' il * scD \.F. CT -tt ORDER CRLP.No.13048 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION