The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kallakuri srinivasaiao, Advocate for the petitioner and M/s. s.Madhavi, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri D.Raghavendar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.32 ol2O22 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners_accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedilgs against them in C.C.No.5062 of 2020 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief trletropolitan IVagistrate at Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498_A,420 of the lndian Penal Code (for short ,lpC') and 4, 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ,the Act,).

02. Heard Sri C. pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 and Smt.S.t\4adhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State_respondent No.1 as well as sri D. Raghavendar Rao, rearned counser for the unofficiar respondent No.2. perused the record

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner_accused No..l and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 0.1 .1 1.2OOg. They initially lived together happiry and were bressed with two mare chirdren. However, it is alleged that thereafter, the petitioner-accused No.1, at the instigation of the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 4, began I I 2 -=1 \ subjecting respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment. It is further alleged that on 10.09.2019, the petitioner-accused No.'1 had a quarrel with respondent No.2, and on the following day, i.e. 1 1.09 2019, he left the house. Subsequently, on

14.10.2019, the petitioner-accused No.1 allegedly approached the respondent No.2 under lhe pretext of meeting the children at GHIVC Park, but took the children to Gurgaon without her knowledge or consent. Based on these allegations, the respondent No.2 filed the present complaint alleging offences under Sections 498-4 and 420 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act').

04. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they nevei harassed the respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.1 is a leading Surgeon and performing his medical duties with utmost dedication. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father and mother, the petitioner-accused No.4 is the married sister of the accused No.1. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 70 and 60 years, respectively. The petitioner-accused No.1 never harassed the respondent No.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 never 3 interfered in the matrimonial issues of the respondent No.2 and the accused No.l . The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 4 never demanded any dowry from the respondent No.2. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners_accused Nos.1 to 4. There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 to cheat the complainant. There is no medical evidence. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-4, 420 ot lpC and 4, 6 of the Act.

05. With the above submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. Stafe of Telangana and anotherl wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at paragraph Nos 18, 25 & 31 held that: "!9. A bare perusal of the FtR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any pafticular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alteged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. , AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 4

24. lnsofar as appellant Nos 2 to 6 are concerned' 7e finA that they have no connection to the matter at 'irn:i ,* have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason' A perusal of the FIR '*ouia iniirut" that no substantial and specific 'ui",g,rtrnt have been made against appellant Nos'2 io"d""rn", than stating that they used lo instigate .nnctlant No.1 tor demanding more dowry' /f is a/so ""7 fact that they never resided with .,th7 ""nib nur"$ appellant No 1 and respondent No.2 "u"i i", cnitdre' Appeltant Nos 2 and 3 resided loii"in", ut Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh Appellant Nos' 'i"i. a tive in Netlore' Bengaluru and Guntur "innteA resPectivelY'

25. A mere reference to the names of family members i a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute' '*iinoiut tp"",fic allegations indicating their active 'nr"ir"*i^ shoutd be nipped in the bud' lt is a w.ell ,",",ognir"A fact, borne out of judicial experience' that 'ilr" it often a tendency to implicate all the members otf the husbancl's family when domestic disputes anse ., , matrimonial discord Such generalised and ,*..ping accusations unsuppoied by concre.te ",", -",uii[r"" or pafticularised atlegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Coufts must exerctse caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal .lrro,ort and the legal process and avoid -r,nn"l""rrrry harassment of innocent family members' ln the present case, appellant Nos'2 to 6' who are the *"iioint of the family of appellant No'1 have been tiiris i, different cities and have not resided in the 'm"iironiut house of appellant No 1 and respondent 'io'.2 n"nin Hence' they cannot be dragged .into prot",ution and the same would be an abuse ,n," ,no""rt of the law in the absence of specific "o, "riiin"t atlegations made against each of them' l! The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way i an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflictecl on a woman by her husband and his family' ensuring swift intervention by the State However' in . r""ent y"urt, ,t there have been a notable rise in 5 1 'fo, matrimonial disputes across the country, a.ccompanied by growing discord and tension withirt the institution of marriage, consequen y, there has been a growing tendency to misuse piovisions tike Section 4984 of the tpc as a tool uni"r;;;;g personal vendetta against the husband and his famiiy wife Making vague and generalisea attegatin's during matrimoniat conflicts, if not scrutiniz.i, *i,t lead to the misuse of legat proces.ses arA a, encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her famity. Sometimes, ,""lorrl;e is ALen to invoke Section 49gA of the lpC "guin"t i,. hu;band and his family in order to see* Jomptiantce with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequenily, this Couft has, time "ra "gaii, c-autioned against prosecuting the husband ;;; "r; family in the absence of a clear pima facie case against them. "ppr

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who. has sufferecl cruelty in terms if wnat ias O,ee, contemplated under Section 49gA of the tpC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. ThZt is not the intention of our aforesaid oOservatiois Out we should not encourage a case like as in the pns",nt one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the firs;t ant_ husband of the second respondent h;;.i;,- u complaint under Section 4984 of the lpC is lodge'd by the tatter ln fact, the insertion of the said pro;i";;r-; me.ant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home pri;;r;; due to an unlawful demand for any property o, valuable security in the form d d.;,y ;;;;r;;, sometimes l is misused as in the present case. 31. Furlher, this Couft in preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 hetd that th;;;r;; have to be extremety carefut and in dJJin", with these complaints and must t"k. p,r;;;;;;; realties into consideratit while deating with matrimoniar tgations of harassment by "urtior" The "rln "ar"s. v] t..i 6 the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

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

06. Further, he relied upon a decision in Disha Kapoor v. State of tJttar Pradesh2 it was by the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph No.9 that: "9. We cannot but also observe 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 sald to have suffered a fracture."

07. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for unofficial respondent No 2 submitted that there are specific ' AtR 2025 sUPREME couRT 2273 i 7 allegations against the petitioners, which are triable issues. The truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Courl and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

08. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are aged father, mother and married sister of the accused No..l . lt is an undisputed fact that they are living at Gurgaon, Haryana. There is no allegation pertaining to the giving, taking, or demanding of dowry. So also, there is no dishonest or fraudulent intention attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 to deceive or cheat the complainant. However, upon a careful scrutiny of the charge sheet, it is evident that the circumstances which prompted the respondent No.2 to lodge the present complaint pertain to the conduct of the petitioner-accused No.1 in taking away the children, without the consent of the respondent No.2, which does not fall within the ambit of Sections 420 or 498_4 of the lndian Penal Code.

09. Apart from the allegation that the respondent No.2 was subjected to physical assault by way of twisting her palm, pulling her hair, slapping her face, and being verbally abused by 8 \ the petitioner-accused No.1 at the instigation of petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 4, there is no medical evidence or statement from a competent medical practitioner to substantiate the said allegation. There are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4.

10. Upon a careful scrutiny of the entire charge sheet averments, it is evident that, in order to substantiate the basic allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 4 for the alleged offences, the police have examined LW3 and LW4' who are stated to be neighbours of the respondent No.2 and are cited as independent witnesses. However, their statements recorded under Section 16'1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicate that they became aware of the alleged harassment solely through the respondent No.2, and not through any direct observation or personal knowledge of the alleged incidents. Out of the eight witnesses listed, three are the complainant and her family members, who are interested witnesses' while the remaining three are official witnesses. Furthermore, there is no statement from any competent Doctor on record to establish that the complainant was subjected to physical harassment. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupporled by concrete 9 evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution of the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 4. .

11. Making vague and generalised allegations 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 family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-4 of the lpC against the husband and his family in order to seek compriance with the unreasonabre 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 them. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 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

12. Except the bald allegation that the petitioners_ accused Nos.2 to 4 instigated the petitioner_accused No.1 in harassing the respondent No.2, no substantial or specific allegations have been made against them. The charge sheet does not attribute even a single specific instance of cruelty, harassment, or demand for dowry to the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 4 The entire genesis of the allegations, as reflected in 10 Ll the charge sheet, centers around the petitioner-accused No 1 and his alleged conduct. A mere general and omnibus allegation that the acts of harassment by the petitioner-accused No 1 were at the instance or instigation of his aged parents and married sister i.e. the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, is insufficient to prosecute them. ln the absence of any cogent material or speciflc allegations constituting cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry, subjecting the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 4 to the trial would be un.iust and amount to abuse of the process of law'

13. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid dolrrn by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decrsion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 4 are liable to be quashed'

14. Accordingly' this Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 4 in C.C.No.5062 of 2O2O on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad' are hereby quashed' - 11

15. lnsofar as the petitioner_accused No.1 is concerned, the learned triar court is directed to proceed with the triar in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this Order, and to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. However, the personal appearance of the petitioner_accused No. 1 before the learned trial Court shall stand dispensed with, except when his presence is specifically required during the course of the trial, subject to the condition that he shall be duly represented by his learned counsel on each and every date of hearing. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed \ To,

2. J 4 //rRUE coPY'// SD/. U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR K'f2- sEBiiott oFFlcER TheXVAddl...ChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,atHyderabad. The station House officer, Begumpet women porice station, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri. Kallakuri Srinivasarao' Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana' [OUT] YJR/GI] (v 5 Two CD GoPies HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 ORDER CRLP;No.32 ot 2022 I ) I ) ,4'a Jtt' I ,,E S r.r1 I c 1 B AUG 2025 t f) r: t -*;/ \ .-/." a \t\.:-\ \ ,I !-') t, GRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED. tA- 3\ + .)-,1