The High Court · 2025

3. Gunturu Srinivas, S/o. Sheshavatharam, Aged about 41 Years Caste Vysya Occ. Doctor, Rl/o. Miryalguda Town, Nalgonda District, present l578 US Hyw '19 S Apt 1914.Leesburg GA 31763, Rep by GPA Holder, Gunturu Sheshavataram . ...Petitioners/Accused No. 2 to 4 AND 1 . The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...ResPondent

2. Guntur Swathi, Wo. Santhosh, Aged about 27 Years Vyshya Caste Occ. Housewife, R:/o. Miryalguda. ...RespondenU Defacto Complainant 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 Quash in C.C. No. 1437 of 2021 On the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate ( Prohibition and Excise Offences ) at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1437 of 2021 On the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate ( Prohibition and Excise Offences ) at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District pending disposal of the main Crl. Petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order passed in Crl P No. 9920 of 2022. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S Ganesh, Advocate for the Petitioners and the [\rlrs. S. Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER p a THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMI NAL PETITI ON No.9 920 ot 2022 ORDE R: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash thb proceedings against them in c.c.No..r437 of 2021 on the fire of the Speciar Judiciar First Class t\4agistrate (prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda, pertaining to Crime No.47 of 2021 of W.p.S. Nalgonda, registered for the offences under sections 4gg-A, 420,323 and 506 0f the lndian penar code (for short'rpc') and Section 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard IVlr. S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and lVlrs S.Madhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-state. No representation on beharf of respondent No.2 Perused the record. 3' when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the. rearned counser appearing for the petitioners as weil as the rearned Assistant pubric Prosecutor that the petitioner-accused No.3, who is the father of accused No.1 , has expired.

4. Recording the aforesaid submission, this Criminal petition is dismissed as abated, insofar as petitioner_accused No.3 is concerned. 2

5. The petitioner-accused No 2 is the mother and the petitioner- accused No.4 is tl.re brother of accused No'1 The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd responden l-de facto complainant was married to accused No.1 on 06 10.2017 and it was an arranged marriage At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given Soon after their marriage' accused No.1 reft to usA and she stayed at her matrimonial home along with her in-laws On the instigation of the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 4, accused No t harassed her physically and mentally demanding additionar dowrv. on 26.01 .2018, the de facto comprainant reft to USA. Within few months, she got pregnant When the Doctor revealed that she was pregnant r,rrith a baby girl' accused No'1 and his family members pressurized to terminate her pregnancy After the birth of babY girl on 16.04.2019, accused Nol picked up a quarrer with her and tried to kiil the de facto comPlainant tried her. Due to sur:h unbearable harassment' rescued her. Thereafter, on to commit suicide, but her neighbours 16.01 .2021, ac':used No '1 sent de facto complainant to lndia by keeping her certificates', laptop, silver and gold ornaments with him' Though panchayats were held before the elders' accused No'1 and his family members did not change their attitude. Hence, the present complaint' lt is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the 6. petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto comptainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the 3 1 matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and accused No'1' rt is contended that accused No.1 and de factocomprainant have filed a petition seeking divorce and by order, dated 20.12.2022, the Family Court at USA has granted divorce, dissolving the marriage between accused No.1 and de facto comprainant. rt is further contended that the petitioner-accused No.2 is a resident of Nalgonda. The petitioner-accused No'4 is a Doctor by profession and he is residing at USA, prior to the marriage of accused No..l itself. Even he has not ,attended the marriage of accused No..l and de factocomplainant. Within four months of the marriage, the de faclo complainant left to USA and soon after returning from USA, she has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners herein. Hence, the petitioners have nothing to do with the offences alleged against them. 7 It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are staying away from the de facto complainant and accused No.1, therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the de facto comprainant. rt is further contended that though the de facfo complainant returned to lndia on 16.01 .2021 , the present complaint was lodged on 26.06.202.1. lf really there was harassment, the de factocomplainant should have complained much earlier. The reason for such delay also remained unexplained. lt is also contended that except bard aregations, no specific overt acts are € 4 attributed to them. The ingredients of offences atleged against the petitioners are not made out. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners

8. Learned counsel appearing for the 2n1 respondenl-de facto complainant has filed counter affidavit stating that the accused' including the petitioners herein' have harassed the de facto complainant from the date of her marriage with accused No'1 and being unable to bear the same, the present conrplaint has been lodged' There are speciflc allegations, against the petitioners herein Hence' prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. A, the allegations reveiled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subiect matter of trial' and hence' this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage Accordingly' she prayed to dismiss the Petition. 10. For ther sake of convenience' Section 498-4 of IPC is extracted hereunder: 4g8A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to crueltY'- Wtoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a wotnan'subjectssuchwomantocrueltyshallbepunishedwith a tmprrconment for 6 [snn which may extend to three years and sha also be tiable to fine. Exptanatior._ forin" purpose of this section, "cruerty" means-(p)any w fut conduct which is of such a nature as is likety to drive the woman to cotmmit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to tife, rimb or heatth (whether mental or physicat) of the woman; or(!)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a G* to "o"nrg her or any person related to her to meet any unlawfut demand for any propefty or valuable security or is on account of_failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand 11. ln the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon,ble Supreme Court held as follows: The followino cateoories of cases can be stated by way ot illustration wherein ie exlraoronary power under Arlicle 226 or the inherent powers under se6ti'o, lai Cr.i."i."' ,i, n. exercised process of any couft or othctwise .to """iru ii"'"iiiir i"to", "" t!:,is!.il may not be poss/b/e to tay d;;;;;;i,J"ii",,Zi""n, de ned and sufficien v chann ,:s:!i;,,!,;t";;;;"ii j,r,iJ"Jl'zl,,,iii!,:,ii"i::r:i;f,i:l"i:il:;i"J cases wherein such power should be exercised. th9 Hish coutt either n iiu"ii'uir"iZi -by g)__y!ere..the allegations made in the First lnformation Report or the comptaint. eve.n if they are irii) iiii"'iit""" vatue..and accepted in their entir;ty a" nii iriil.L.i" constitute any offence or make oit "- "i"i ziiii"i, ,0" accused; (2) Where the a egations in the Firsl lnformation Repoft and mateli?ts, if ahy, accompanying the F.t.R. do not disctose a cognizabte offence. iustiiy.inlj in iir.rii)"iir'"ii,ir"" officers.under section i56(i) ;f thu co;;;;;pt",lniu, u, .:!::."f Magistrate within ihe purvie*,i 5""-;i's;(,iiZnn" t ode; 1th?: " (^3) W!:ty the uncontroveied .attegations made in the FIR or comptaint and the evidence ii ,-uip""i"iiil'Z[,ii" o" not disctose the commission or ury oiiilJ'iri"ii?,,ir, case against the accused; " the allegations in the FIR do not constitule a .offence but constitute onl investisatio;is#)riiiiZoi"!oJ.:""ir:":il:,,f:; (4) Where, cognizable offence, no "ol"ctiJ ' t99z scc 1cri1 +za 6 I an order of a Magistrate as contemplated und.er Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegalions made in the FtR or complaint'ar,e so '^ir"rri' Jri-,ritelintty improtable on the basis of wlt:h nl ptudefi person can ever reach a iust conclusion.r'hat there $ i,,ii"i"', i gi"rrt for proceeding agaittst the accuseci (6) Wh,'re there e an express /eoal bar engrafted in any of lhe :H;;;. ''ii ,i"' Coo"'or tie ioncerned.Act (under'which a P"|;;:i;:,o,,"' p;o;",;dlns is lnsatu ted) to . the "iiie iroceedin-os ani/or where lhere is a specific At.l pt'oviding 676visir'11 in the Code o'' lh" iliiili":,,,rlri'ii,"ls ror ttre srievance or the assrieved paftv: "on""'ned ""1,"1,ri,i,r,,'rnZi institution ^. " 'lh'e- fi)Wltereacriminatproceedinoismanffestlyatlendedwith proceedins .is m.1l::uslv 'mala fide and/or where 'l^Zitriii iii in utterior motive ror wrelking ve.nseance '"r'ri.' iiiii"a and with a iiew to spite him due to private and Personal grudge' 12. ln the judgme nl of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v' State of Telangana and anothef' the Hon'ble Supreme Court' at paragraph Nos.31 and 32 held that: ,,3l.Fufther,thisCoUlTinPreetiGuptaVS.StateofJharkhand hauc to be extremelv (2010) 7 scc ait"i"ti"tiul tno "6ut" with these comDlainls and must carefttl and take pragmatic ii'niii"i't" "'"'sideration while deating with "uutiZui'ii-ai'uiing 'i'tegatiols of . h'arassment by the ' rii' matnmonial """""''" i ii" i' d b e e n t,iv i n g- i n cl i ff e re nt c iti e s Zi utiu "i' h u s b it n d's andneveui'itlJa""ii""'"tyii"'t"atheplacewherethe wout-d have an ' entirety different complainant t;;;; comrlexion rni"'itlWzrtiii if th.e comptainant are required to be sc:rutinized with gieat care and circumspection. "u' "t o ^was

32.\Me,therefore'areoftheopinion-thattheimpugnedFlR No 82 of zozi'7iirco'"t'i' itpo'ii"'t No-Z initiated with ulteior motives ti"iaii' personal.scores and orudges against Nos 2 lo 6 members i e appeltant No r herein Hence'';:;';;;;;'i ;"" at hand ratts within catesory (7) iisi t i gnt e d n' B n ap n l- al - T h e ref o re, of i l l U st r at iV e ;,,,i ","ii. c*'li'i'i'ii"pi""""nt J'""' ene'd in'not exercisins the the ''lish and therebv il" ii "iiii s""t19n !!!^^crec po*"' failed to pn'"ni" uiil ol the Court's proc^ess by continuing the "uui*aill crirninal prosecution against the appellants ' "'ia'ii"ioility "appetlant '2oza INSC 9s: 7

13. ln numerous cases, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases herd that making vague and generarised ailegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, wiil read to the misuse of regal 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 IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonabre demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case ,Fgainst the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members.

14. ln the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 and it was also an arranged marriage. on the face of the record, it is evident that no substantiar and specific ailegations have been made against the petitioners herein, other than stating that they instigated accused No.1 in harassing the de facto complainant by demanding additional dowry. Though the marriage had happened in the year 2017 and the de facto complainant returned to rndia on 'r6.01 .2021 ,the present compraint was lodged on 26.06.2021 The reason for such delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained 8 a l5.ltisalsoanadmittedfactthatthepetitioners-accusedNos.2and4, who are the rnother and brother of accused No l are staying away from the family of de tacto complainant and accused No'1 As seen from the record, it is clearlv evident that even before the marriage of accused No 1 with de facfo complainant, the petitioner-accused No'4 is living separately from his family on his job purpose The de facto complainant and accused No 1 have set-up a separate family at USA There is no dishonestorfrauclulentintentiononthepartofpetitioners-accusedNoS.2 and 4, there are no specific allegations against them as to in what manner they threatened the de facto complainant causing criminal intimidation atrd as to how they have caused hurt to the de facto complainant.Nomedicalcertificateisproducedbytheprosecutionto prove the injuries suffered by the de facto complainant Hence' the petitioners cannot be subjected to prosecution' merely basing on the bald averments

16. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments referred to above, the petitioners-accused Nos'2 and 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 them' Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed' i I I '17. lnsofar as the petitioners-accused Nos'2 and 4 are concerned' this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against them in c.c.No.1437 of 2021 on the file of the special Judicial First class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda' Pending miscellaneous applications' if any' shall stand closed i /ITRUE coPY// SD/-A.V.S.P(ASAD ASSISTANT R.EGISTRAR Y SECTION OFFICER at Nalgonda.

1. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offences) Z. i'n" Si"ti"" House Office, WPS Police Station.Nalgonda' Nalgonda District' 5. r*" cdi to the Puulic Piosecutor, State of Telangana' High Court Buildings' at HYderabad (OUT)

4. OnoCC to Mr. S Ganesh, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies I To, DL HIGH COURT DATED:1 5/0 412025 ,) ORDER CRLP.No.9920 of 2022 ',rE SrAl e I a + e :) () ;'i (l l\ , 17 APR 2$Z5 .t FSr;1Ta', A n .rl) ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,2b {/ 4/q /z{