Apex Court rn Neelu Chopra and. another Vs.Bho.rtit, Geetha Mehrotrq. qnd qnother v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anothelz and also Dqro. Lakshmi Naragana Vs. State oJ

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 call for the records pertaining to C.C No.150712023, on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- M.M Court, Medchal- Matkajgiri District at Malkajgiri. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 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 stay all further proceedings in c.o No. i s07l2023, on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- M.M Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Deepa R, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and of sri Advocate for the Respondent No. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.11344 OF 2o23 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1507 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, (for short, the trial CourtJ, registered a case in Cr.No.241 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 and 406 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned counsel representing petitioners, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l-State and Ms.V.Sanjana, learned counsel representing respondent No.2. Perused the record. I I 2 .*o- n".rrroo!#i! -.- -- .i { g. The brief facts of the case are that the victim married accused No.I on lg.l2.2ot4 and they were blessbd wit-h one daughter and one son. At the time of marriage, on the demand of accused No.l and his family, the parents of the victim gave Rs. 10 lakhs cash, one gold chain, one bracelet, one gold ring to accused No.l, silver articles worth Rs.I Iakh and other household articles worth Rs. I lakh as dowSz ald spent Rs.2O lakhs towards her marriage. Later, the accused No.1 and the other accused, who are mother-in-Iaw, brother_in_law and co_sister of the victim, harassed the victim mentally and physicaJly and also used to threaten her with dire consequenc:" a, want of addifiona.l dowry. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No.24l of 2023 before the Ma_lkajgiri police Stafion, Rachakonda. It is stated that after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was fiIed uide C.C.No.|SOZ of 2023 P."fr-i on the file of learned princrpal Junior Civil 3 EW,J CRW No.17344-2O23 Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Medchal- Malkajgiii District at Malkajgiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowr5r Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstlg submitted that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein' He secondlg submitted that though there is no corroborative evidence to prove the alleged offences, the petitioners were implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations. He lasfly submitted that the petitioners have no role in the marriage life of the victirn and accused No.l as the marriage took place on 18. l2.2OI4 and the petitioner No'1/A3 left to U.S.A on 31.01.2015 and petitioner No'21A4 joined her husband/A3 in the month of August, 20 15 and they lived there up to 18.05.2016. The petitioners ^2 herein were not in Indian for a considerable period of 4 EW,J CRLP No,l 1344_2023 time and in this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court rn Neelu Chopra and. another Vs.Bho.rtit, Geetha Mehrotrq. qnd qnother Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anothelz and also Dqro. Lakshmi Naragana Vs. State oJ Telangana qnd anothers and prayed the Court to a-llow the Criminal Petition.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the trial has to be conducted in order to elicit the true facts of the case, therefore, quashing the proceedings against ttre petitioners, at this stage, does not arise. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. On. the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor submitted that since the allegations '(2oto) I scc,(crl) 286 ' (2012) l0 scc 741 3 2024 O Supreme (SC) I162 5 EW,J cRLP_No.1 1344-2O23 levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature and the trial is yet to be commenced, continuation of proceedings before the tria-l Court is necessary to come to right conclusion. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. In view of the riva-l submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material evidence available on record. As per the averments of the complaint, the petitioners, who are brother-in- law and co-sister of the victirn, despite taking amounts from the victim towards dowr5r, harassed the victim physically and mentally and threatened her with dire consequences. It is.pertinent to note that except -the above bald allegation, there are no specilic allegations against the petitioners and they were charged with harassment without any specilic evidence showing their involvement and they were no way concerned with the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and the victirn. *--t 6 EW,J CRLP_No.1 1344-2023

8. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is relevant to note that while dealing with matters arising out of similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the judgments of Neelu Chopra (Supra 1), Geetha Mehrotra (Supra 2) and Dara Lakshm:i Naragana (Supra 3), categorically held that so far as in the matrimonial disputes are concerned misuse of legal provisions cannot be continued in the absence of specifrc allegation.

9. In the instant case, pima facie, it is apparent that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. Further, there is no incriminating evidence to prove the alleged offences. Hence, this Court, having respectful agreement with the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and also considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, is of the considered opinion that even though the trial is 7 EW,J c,.LP-No.11344-2O23 conducted, no purpose would be served as there are no specific allegations against the petitioners/A3 and A4.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed' Consequently, the proceed'ings against the petitioners/A3 and A4 in C'C'No'15o7 of 2023 pending on the hle of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-,{ and 406 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act' are herebY quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications' if any' shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 rnp Princioal Junior Civil Judge-cum- ri,i"i.nri-M5tiuigiri District at Malkajgiri' Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

2. The Station House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station' Rachakonda 3. One CC to Sri. Deepa R Advocate [OPUC]' 4 5. Two CD CoPies- Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] YfF/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 I ORDER CRLP.No.11344 of 2023 R IHE S IA; o 6' ( o ?B !,' iii; r * ;,/ .' -,, ALLOWING.OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. * R8 4x