The High Court · 2025

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.C. No .150712023 related to the Petitioner. on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- M.M Court I\iled cha l-l\rlalkajg iri District Petitioner at Malkajgiri including the appearance of the This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusine r.he l\,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the argumer)t:j of Smt. R. DEEPA, Advocate for the petitioner and Smt. S.Madhavi, Assistant F,ubric prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and lrzls. verose sanjanzr, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 1354 ot 2023 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner_accused No.2 to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No .1507 of 2023 on the file of the learned principal Junior Civil Judge_cum_ l\/etroporitan Magistrate, tnledchal-lr4alkajgiri District at lr4arkajgiri. The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.2 are under Sectlons 498-4, 406 of the lndian penal Code (for short 'lPC') and 3, 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act (for short ,the Act,)

02. Heard Smt.R.Deepa, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No..l as well as Ms. Verose Sanjana, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No 2 was solemnized on j8.12.2014 During their wedlock, the couple was blessed with two children. Subsequenily, the accused No.1 allegedly subjected the respondent No 2 to physical and mental cruelty and harassment rn connection with unlaMul demands for dowry lt is further alleged that the accused No.1, despite being \ ---'i - 2 unemployed, misrepresented to the respondent No 2 and her family members that he was employed as a Researcher at Battelle Science and Technology lndia prrvate t_imited, pune. Aggrieved by the continuous harassment, the rt:s;pondent No.2 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Sections 498-4 and 406 of the lpC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. 04 Learned counsel for the petitioner sul)rnitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and has never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. lt is submitted that the petitioner_ accused No.2, who is the widowed mother of the accused No.1 and is aged over 70 years, has not rnterfered in thr.. matrimoniar affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No..l . The petitioner-accused No 2 has neither demanded d,crvry from the respondent No 2 nor from her parents al any poin. rtf time. lt is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioner-accused No.2 in the complaint or the charge sheet. The contents of the same do noj Cisclose the essential ingredrents necessary to constitute oflences under Sections 498-,4 and 406 of the lpC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceed ngs against the petitioner- accu sed No.2. 3 -

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come oul only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition 06 A perusal of the entire record reveals that after the marrrage, the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1 lived happily for some time and were blessed with two children. The allegations contained in the charge sheet primarily pertain to the period between 2014 and 2017. lt is evident from the face of the record that the majority of the allegations are directed against the accused No.1, the husband of respondent No.2. The present petitioner, who is arrayed as the accused No.2, is the mother-in- law of the respondent No.2 and is aged approximately 70 years 07 . Significantly, there are no specific or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet detailing the manner in which the petitioner-accused No.2 allegedly subjected the respondent No.2 to physical or mental harassment. All the allegations are made against the accused No.1 . There are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioner-accused No.2. Such 4 \-1 - generalised and sweeping accusations unsuppo 1ed by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot fcrm basis for crrminal prosecution. 08 ln view of the facts and circumstancers of the present case, it apposite to refer to the dectsion of the []onourable Supreme Court of lndia in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Stafe of Telangana and anothert wherettr at Paragraph Nos.18. 24.25.28.29, 31 & 32 it was held that "!t. A bare perusal of the FIR shows tt,at the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vagLte and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellar,t No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 lo 6 instiqated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provioe,T any specific details or described any particular inst,artce of harassment. She has also not mentioned th) time date, place, or manner in which the alteged harassment occurred. Therefore. the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

24. lnsofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concernerl we find that they have no connection to the nt ter itt hand and have been dragged into the web o' :rime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of tnet FIR would indicate that no substantial and :;peciftc allegations have been made against appellanl Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to ir'siigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. /l is a/so an admitted fact that they never resided vt;tlt the couple namely appellant No.1 and responder t No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 re.;ided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and 3untur respectively. ' ltR 2ozs SUPREI,4E couFT 173 :1..t.. -:- ., -:i i I I ! i i l I

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial 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 drspules arse out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or pafticularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family 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 abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the Slate However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial dispules across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to rnisuse provisions like Secllon 4984 of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the rnisuse 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 Seclion 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. 6 Consequently, this Court has, time and .tgain cautioned against prosecuting the husband ilnd his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any l/cman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemptated under Section 4984 of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from mahng a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the ptesefit one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the fist appellanl husband of the second respondent heretn' a complaint under Section 498A of the ,rg 1t lsctged bY the latter. ln fact, the inseftion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman tt'ho is subjected to cruelty in the matnmonial home primarily due to an unlav'tful demand for any propeiy or vatuable security in the form of dowry' H<tvever. sometimes lf ls misused as in the present case

31. Fufther, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs S)lille of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the coutls have to be extremely careful and cautiotts in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealinll wrth matrimonid cases. Ihe allegations of harassnetnt by the husband's close relatives who had been tiving in different cities and never visited or rarely visied the place where the complainant resided would I ave an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circums7ection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 nd his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within cat'egory (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhalan Lal. 7 j i Therefore, the High Coutt, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Coutt's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

09. Further, in Disha Kapoor v. Sfafe of lJttar Pradeshz it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph No.9 '9.. We cannot but also obserue that there is no specific allegation of any physical violence except for vague statements made about the petitioner having been beaten up, in which she sustained a fracture and having been subjected to physical and mental torture. There is no evidence of a treatment undergone to substantiate the allegation; especially when the petitioner ls sard to have suffered a fracture."

10. ln the present case on hand, the petitioner-accused No.2 is a widowed and elderly mother-in-law of the respondent No.2, and there are no specific or detailed allegations of harassment attributed to her in the record. ln the contents of the FlR, the respondent No.2 went to the extent of alleging that she had attempted to commit suicide due to the alleged unbearable harassment caused by the accused persons. However, a perusal of the charge sheet reveals that there is no conclusive outcome of the investigation with regard to this allegation. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence on record to substantiate the claim of any AJR 2025 SUPREA,4E COURT 2273 8 such suicide attempt. To substantiate the allegartions levelled in the charge sheet, no independent witness was i:xamined by the Police

11. tMaking vague and generalized alleqations in the context of matrimonial disputes, if not carefully r;c;rutinized, may result in the misuse of the legal process and ntay encourage coercive tactics by the wife and/or her fa mily members Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Courts to exartine whether a prima facie case exists against the husband and his family members before subjecting them to criminal prrsecution under the offence under Section 498-,A of the lPC. Furthermore, there are no allegations suggesting 'criminal breach cf trust' so as to attract the offence under Section 406 of the lPC. ln the absence of clear and specific allegations, implicating the petitioner- accused No.2 in criminal proceedings would anount to a sheer abuse of the process of law

12. ln view of the facts and circumstancr:s of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 amounts to s;heer abuse of - 9 process of law, therefore. lhe criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 are liable to be quashed

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in CC No'l 507 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicatrons, if any, shall stand closed. o^3,E.,il',uA:t'Ei RRI ' //TRUE COPY// SECTI NOF FICER o n e F ai r plF,:, ". :T.""1 l:,:LXilrl Justice Juvvadi Sridevi ind Perusal) To, 1 2 J 4

5. 6 7 jiilitsill:t',,ff ll:%Jr'ii-"l,i3i- '--";t;'Wl'iP""J'F[#3,nioratecourt' 11 LR CoPies' The under secretary, union of rndia Ministry of Law, Justice and company Affairs, New Delhi J":l:tY8,ltffi "r'ff Ei"ff :?ilXX??,'''lJary'Hishcourtrorthe il jt'"t""'*ft The Station House Officer' Malkaigiri Police Station' Rachakonda Dist' Two CCs to Public Prosecutor' High Court at Hyderabad' [OUTI one CC to Smt. R.DEEpA, Advocate [oPUCl One CC to Ms Verose Sanjana' Advocate [OPUC] 8 9 Two CD CoPies tA. HIGH COURT DATED: 2510712025 ? ORDER CRLP.No.11354 of 2023 r'-=_::=\\ \rtl:,I.,.j.--\ \'1, o \r-, i. 19 No|J 205 |' / + I O o4, t Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Alflowed. (p- @ ?rf.\">