The High Court · 2025

JHE HONOURABLE SMT, JUSTICE JUVVADISRIDEVI CRIMTNAL PETIT ION No.96{1 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C.No.6'100 of 2020 on the file of the learned V Additional [\4etropolitan [Vlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 49g-A, 417, 406, 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short ,lpC,) and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act').

02. Heard Sri H.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Amarender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, Sri Molepeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.'1 . Perused the record. 03(a). ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between accused No.1 and the victim was solemnized on .16.03.20.17. After the marriage, the victim joined the matrimonial home at Hastinapuram to lead a conjugal life On 26.03.2017, both he victim and accused No.1 traveled to the United States of America (USA). lnitially, they lived happily for about a week and thereafter, accused No.1 allegedly began harassing the victim, demanding that the plots .\\ \\ 2 given to her at the time of marriage be registered in his name. He also demanded additional dowry, allegedly at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4 Q3(b) It is further alleged that accused No.1 failed to maintain physical relations with the victim and threatened to kill her if she disclosed this fact to anyone. ln February 2019, accused No.1 is said to have taken an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs from the victim and purchased a plot in Hyderabad in the name of accused No.4. ln April 2019, when the victim informed accused Nos.2 to 4 about the lack of physical intimacy from accused No.'1 , a panchayat was convened During this meeting, accused Nos.1 to 4 reportedly assured her that she would be treated well 03(c). Subsequently, the victim and accused No.1 returned to the USA. However, accused No.1 allegedly bore grudge against the victim for having revealed the matter to the elders and threatened to divorce her. On 23.01 .2020, accused No.1 asked the victim to return to lndia, stating that the issue would be resolved in the presence of elders. Believlng iim, the victim returned to lndia on the said date. However, accused No.1 did not respond to her calls and messages thereafter. When she contacted accused Nos.2 to 4, they too allegedly demanded additional dowry. ) 03(d) On 06.03.2020, the victim went back to the USA. After completing a two-week quarantine due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she reached their residence, only to find that accused No.1 had vacated the premises without informing her. lt is alleged that he took away all her documents and 15 tulas of gold ornaments from the house. The victim lodged a complaint with the Cambridge Police Department on 25.03.2020. When the US police contacted accused No.1, he allegedly refused to provide the documents required for the victim's visa renewal and expressed disinterest in continuing the marital relationship. Finally, in June 2020, a mediation session took place at Nalgonda in the presence of elders, during which accused No.1 refused to resume conjugal relations with the victim. Aggrieved by the harassment, respondent No.2 who is the father of the victim lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Sections 498-4,

417.406. and 506 of the lndian Penal Code (lPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and have never subjected the victim to any form of harassment. lt is submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, petitioner-accused No.3 is the brother and petitioner-accused No.4 is the sister of the accused No.1. They never interfered in the \ 4 matrimonial affairs between the accused No.'1 and the victim. The ..1 petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 have neither demanded dowry from the victim nor from her parents at any point of time. lt is further contended that all the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are staying separately away from the accused No.1 and victim. lt is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Sections 498-4 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act Apart from the same, the charges under Sections 417, 406 and 506 of IPC are also not made out against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 It is further contended that the allegations stated to have taken place in the USA, as mentioned in the FlR, are factually incorrect and baseless, and that the victim never stayed at the house of her in-laws after the marriage. lt is also contended that the victim intended to pu rchase a plot Hyderabad, for which accused No.'1 contributed money, and that accused No.1 took the help of accused No.2 for the purchase of the said plot, which was registered in the name of the victim. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4.

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition

06. A perusal of the entire record reveals that the majority of the allegations are primarily directed against accused No.1, the husband of victim. The record further discloses that the accused No.'1 and victim never resided along with petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. Petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, petitioner-accused No.3 is the brother and petitioner-accused No.4 is the sister of accused No.1. The circumstances that led for filing the present complaint is that the accused No.'1 is not maintaining physical relationship with the victim and demand to register her plot in the name of the accused No.'1 .

07. ln Geddam Jhansi and another v. The State of Telangana and othersl wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos 31,32,33,34,35,36 and 38 held that: "31 . lnvoking criminal process is a serlous matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the penal code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. lt applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to supporl the same may have dlsaslrous consequences for the institution of family, ' 2o2s INSo 't 60 6 which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. lnstitution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships such as fhose between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values anC cultural expectations. These relationships are often 'tiewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional assoclafions. For the aforesaid reasoln, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationshlps are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courls should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute ciminal offences.

32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the c:omplaints filed alleging haraSsment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Fufther, when tempers rLtn high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.

33. lt goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus. providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and 7 producing direct evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. ln fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent slalules tike Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since. violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now crimindised entaiting serlous consequences on the perpetrators, the coutts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific altegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the taw to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount imporlance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indisciminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.

34. For a matrimonial relationship which is fouoded on lhe basls of cordiality and trust to tum sour to an extent to make a paftner to hurl attegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other paftner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious retationship woutd develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of acts which turns, othenuise an amicable retationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassmenl, there would normally be a serles of offending acts, which would be required to be spett out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegation of harassment without pointing out the spec/rcs against such perpetrators would not suffice, as ls the case in respect of the present appellants.

35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminai cases relating to domestic violence, the comptaints and \\ \\ I charges should be specific, as far as posslb/e, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecutecl, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend anl/ helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceedinll against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.

36. Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean that relatives cannot be brought under the purview of the aforesaid penal provisions when they have actively pafticipated in inflichng cruelty on the daughter-inJaw/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such allegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such members of the family or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a matrimonial discord and allegations made by an emotionally disturbed person. Each and every case of domestic violence will thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case.

38. We have also noted that the appellants do not live with the principal accused. While the marriage took place in Pondicherry and the complainant lived with her husband and mothenin-law in Chennai, the appellants are residents of Hyderabad. As the appellants do not stay together with the complainant and her husband and mother-in-law, to make the appellants as co-accused for alleged offences committed in the matrimonial house of the 9 complainant on tfie bas/s of very generalised allegations does not appear to be tenable."

08. ln Disha Kapoor v. State of lJttar Pradesh2 it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph No.g 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 tofture. There is no evidence of a treatment undergone to substantiate the allegation; especially when the petitioner ls said to have suffered a fracture."

09. lt is pertinent to note that even though the allegations of physical harassment are made but there is no medical evidence on record to prove the said allegations. Significahfly, there are no specific, direct, or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet describing the manner in which the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 said to have subjected the victim to physlcal or mental harassment. All the substantial allegations appear to be directed solely against accused No.1. The charge sheet lacks any detailed particulars or instances of alleged harassment attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4.

10. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of 2 ntR zoz5 supReutE couRT 2273 10 t-. lndia in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Stafe of Telangana and anothef wherein at Paragraph Nos.18, 24,25,28 29,31 & 32 it was held that: "18. A bare perusal of the FIR 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 particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

24. lnsofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. /i ls a/so an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

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 disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete t ntR zozs supReN,tE couRT 173 11 evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Coufts must exercise caution in such cases fo 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.l 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 State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonid disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency lo misuse 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 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 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Couft has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the lpC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is t. .,1 72 not the intention of our aforesaid obseNations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant- husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. ln fact, the inserlion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any propefty or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it ls mlsused as in the present case. 31 . Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. Stale of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimontal cases. Ihe allegations 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 would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great ca re and ci rc u m spection.

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 setf/e personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at 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 Secllon 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants." 11 ln the present case, as observed supra, the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 4 are the mother, brother and sister of the accused 13 No.'1 , and they are living separately. There are no specific roles attributed to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, nor there are any direct or particular allegations made against them. A perusal of the charge sheet further reveals that the investigation has not yielded any conclusive findings regarding the allegation in connection with any alleged demand for additional dowry. Furthermore, the absence of specific and distinct allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 renders the accusations vague and unsubstantiated. As such, the material on record does not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to attract the offences alleged against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 4. Mere mentioning of the names of the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 4, who are mother, brother and sister of the accused No.1 in the charge sheet, without attributing any specific overt act or role to them, is not sufficient to sustain prosecution. lt is pertinent to note that vague, omnibus, and generalized allegations which are devoid of specific instances of cruelty or harassment, particularly, when unsupported by material evidence, do not satisfy the legal requirements under Sections 498-4, 417,406,506 of the lpC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

12. ln view of the facts and circumstances 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 \ t I L4 opinion that in the absence of clear, direct, and substantive allegations indicating the involvement of the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 4, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are liable to be quashed

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.6100 of 2020 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan [\tlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed To, SD/- A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFTCER l.TheVAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate,LBNagar'RangaReddy' 2. One CC to Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, Advocate' 3. The S.H,O., P,S. Women, Rachakonda District' 4. One CC to SRl. S AMARENDAR REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT' HYD [OUT] 6. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 / ...r1i:,-,,i;\ : ', :l 5 sEP 2025 c._ ORDER CRLP.No.9611 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRLP {