The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing t te Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumerr s of sri BAGLEKAR AKASH KUMAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner and sri M.Ranr, chandra reddy Addl public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and rone appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER I EEIElE#dii.-_:.-. --. -;;{ Y THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.14083 of 2O24 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C.No.708 of 2023 on the file of the learned lll Additional Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-4 of the lndian penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act (for short 'the Act'),

02. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri tVl.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public prosecutor for the State_ respondent No. 1. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was happened at New Zealand on 06.1 1.ZOl5 without consent of both side elders, and they setfled at United States of x America and blessed with a son. Thereafter, the accused No.1 and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 srljected her to physical and mental harassment by demandin; dowry. The accused No.'1 harassed the respondent No.2 and used to pick up quarrels with her. She filed a divorce <:i se at United State of America and during December, 2022 ;he came to lndia and lodged the present complaint. Aggr eved by the said harassment, the respondent No.2 lodgerj the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 49t- \ of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act

04. Learned counsel for the petitione,r ; submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and has ner >r subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harass,r rent lt is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3 are parents and the petitioner-accused Nos.4 anr 5 are the sisters of the accused No.1. The petitioners-ac;( used Nos.2 to 5 never interfered in the matrimonial affairs I etween the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. Thi: petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Hydera: rd and the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are t >siding at t- I h I I 3 SecunderabadandBangalorerespectively.Thepetitioners have neither demanded dowry from the respondent No'2 nor from her parents at any point of time lt is furlher contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet The contents of the samedonotdisclosetheessentialingredientsnecessaryto constitute offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Act Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 5'

05. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners 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 marriage between accused No"l and respondent No'2 was solemnized in the year 2015 aI New Zealand, and thereafter they resided together in the United States of America' where they were blessed with a son. The record further discloses that petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of 9-. \ \ \ :-l - \ 4 accused No.1, who are residing at Hyderabal Petitioners- accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters of ac:used No.1, residing separately at Secunderabad an,j Bangalore, respectively

07. ln Geddam Jhansi and another v The State of Telangana and othersl wherein the Honour::le Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.31 to 36 and 38 held th rt "!1 . lnvoking criminal process is a serious matte penal consequences involving coercive meas which can be permitted only when specifi<> , which constitute offences punishable under the , code or any other penal statute are allege attributed to the accused and a prima facie ce made out. lt applies with equal force when c'i laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Crimtn; domestic dr'spules without specific allegations credible materials to support the same may dlsaslrous consequences for the institution of Fi which is built on the premise of love, affe cordiality and mutual trust. lnstitution of t constlfutes the core of human society. Don relationships, such as those between i members, are guided by deeply ingrained values and cultural expectations. These relatror, are often viewed as sacred, demanding a highel of respect, commitment, and emotional inve; compared to other social or professional assoc/? For the aforesaid reason. preservation of relationship has always been emphasised Thus, when family relationships are sought brought within the ambit of ciminal procee rupturing the family bond, courts shou c circumspect and judicious, and should ./res. cr(s) 'enal 7or ;e is \ave mily, :tion, ;hrps ions. tpon. ' zo2s tNSC too I I 5 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 drspules, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints fited alteging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the famity who do not come to the rescue of the comptainant 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. FurTher, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is atso a propensity to exaggerate the allegations. which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.

33. /l goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handted with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence typica y 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 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 slatules like 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 criminalised entailing serlous consequences on the perpetrators, the coutls have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetratbrs and not generalised allegations. 'fhe purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic viotence is of \ --\F{,r! - \ \ 6 paramount importance, and as such, a balance l,i s to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relit ves are not indiscriminately brought within the crimina net in a sweeping manner.

34. For a matrimonial relationship which is foundt fhe basls of cordiality and trust to turn sour '< extent to make a partner to hurl allegation. domestic violence and harassment against the < paftner, would normally not happen at the spur t moment and such acimonious relationship 11, develop only in course of time. Accordingly, str situation would be the culmination of a series at which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, il fractured one. Thus, in such cases rnvrr allegations of domestic violence or harassment, I would normally be a senes of offending acts, ,r would be required to be spelt out by the complat against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought t initiated against them. Thus, mere general alle11, of harassment without pointing out the sp<,r against such perpetrators would not suffice, as it case in respect of the present appellants. 'tich

35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal ,; relating to domestic violence, the complaints charges should be specific, as far as possibi€ against each and every member of the family n,l t accused of such offences and 'sought tct prosecuted, as othervvise, it may amount to misut the stringent criminal process by indiscrimin dragging all the members of the family. There ma situations where some of the family member relatives may turn a blind eye to the violen; harassment perpetrated to the victim, and mat extend any helping hand to the victim, which doe. necessarily mean that they are also perpetrato, domestic violence, unless the circumstances cl, indicate their involvement and instigation. He implicating all such relatives without making s1 t allegations and allributing offending acts to lher t 1Ce, CIECE / I 1 proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively cottaborated 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 puNiew of the aforesaid penal provisions when they have actively pafticipated in inflicting cruelty on the daughter-in-law/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 a egations 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 tive with the principal accused. While the marriage took place in Pondicherry and the complainant lived with her husband and mother-in-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 complainant on the basis of very generatised allegalions does nol appear to be tenable."

08. lt is pertinent to note that there is no reference to any act of harassment by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 towards the respondent No.2. Significantly, there are no specific, direct, or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet describing the manner in which the petitioners- accused Nos 2 to 5 said to have subjected the respondent x i No.2 to physical or mental harassment Tit charge sheet lacks any detailed particulars or instan<;, :s of alleged harassment attributable to the petitioners_acc -ised Nos.2 to A

09. ln view of the facts and clrcums tances of the present case, it apposite to refer to the rr, rcision of the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in D zra Lakshmi Narayana and others y. Stafe of Telanganer and anothel wherein at Paragraph Nos.1g, 24,25,2g,2g,1 .1 & 32 it was held that "18. A bare perusal of the FtR shows tht allegations macle by respondent No.2 are vag,t omnibus. Other than ctaiming that appellaitn, harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 insLt him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provide specific details or described any pafticular instet harassment. She has also not mentioned the, date, place, or manner in which the zl harassment occurred. Therefore, .the FIR concrete and precise allegations. ' the t and No.1 :e of time, )ged

24. lnsofat as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are conce necl we find that they have no connection to the mati >r at hand and have been dragged into the web of t rime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of th= FtR would indicate that no substantial and sp, cific allegations have been made against appeltant \ x.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to inst late appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. lt i: also an admitted fact that they never resided wit,t the 'er'2o2s supREtr,lE couRT 173 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 matimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsuppofted by concrete evidence or parlicularised allegations cannot form the basrs for ciminal prosecution. Coufts 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 4984 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 matrimonial dlspules across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Sectlorr 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 .X encouragement for use of arm twisting tactic:; wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is to invoke Secllon 49BA of the lpC agains husband and his family in order to seek con4tt with the unreasonable demands of a Consequently, this Court has, time and i cautioned against prosecuting the husband a,, family in the absence of a clear prima facie against them. wife. gain, , his

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any vr, who has suffered cruelty in terms of what ha: contemplated under Section 49BA of the tpC ; remain silent and forbear herself from mal.i complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. r not the intention of our aforesaid observations lt should not encourage a case like as in the pr, one, where as a counterblast to the petitio dissolution of marriage sought by the first appe husband of the second respondent here i, complaint under Section 498A of the tpC is toclgrt the latter. ln fact, the insertion of the said provit;, meant mainly for the protection of a woman tv subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home prtr, due to an unlawful demand for any prope., valuable security in the . form of dowry. Hot"v somefimes ft ls mrsused as in the present case )een 'ould raf ts 't we lant- ln rs ro ts /or tver,

31. Fufther, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. Slr e of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 662 hetd that the : urts have to be extremely careful and cautious in de ing with these complaints and must take praot tatic realties into consideration while deating with matrimonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassmet t by the husband's close relatives who had been livit g in different cities and never visited or rarely visite,t the place where the complainant resided would hav t an entirely different complexion. The altegations o the complainant are required to be scrutinized with t reat care and ci rcum specti o n.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion thal impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent to.2 a a-t was initiated 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 Sectlon 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants." .10. ln the present case, as observed supra, the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3 are the aged parents of the accused No.1, and the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing separately from the accused No 1 and respondent No,2. There are no specific roles attributed to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, nor there are any direct or particular allegations made against them. The present criminal case was lodged in the month of December, 2022 and later on she left to United States of America 11 A perusal of the charge sheet discloses all the incidents allegedly happened at United States of America and there is an allegation levelled that the son of the respondent No.2 was assaulted. However, the charge sheet being the outcome of the entire investigation, does not reveal any conclusive finding with regard to the said allegation. ln t2 \\ Disha Kapoor v. State of lJttar Pradesh3 r1 was by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.9 that tt for ,ving "9. We cannot but also observe that there t specific allegation of any physical violence exce, vague statements made about the petitioner tt been beaten up, in which she sustained a fra :tu re and having been subjected to physicat and r, >ntal torture. There is no evidence of a trettl undergone to substantiate the allegation; esp= >ia y when the petitioner rs sald to have suffe 1 d a fracture."

12. ln the present case on hand, there i; neither any medical evidence nor any statement from I competent medical practitioner to substantiate the allegati rn of assault of her son as alleged by the respondent No.2. I loreover, the charge sheet lacks specific details or descript r e particulars of any specific instances of harassment allege,J y caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 'l 3. Upon a careful scrutiny of the aver nents in the charge sheet, it is evident that, in order to suc;tantiate the basic allegations against the petitioners-accus() I Nos.2 to 5 for the alleged offences, the police have examrr ed a total of seven witnesses, out of which four are the corr llainant and her family members, who are admittedly interesl, rd witnesses 3 ntn zozs supRettE couRT 2273 I 7 \ and remaining are police officials Significantly' no independent witness has been examined by the lnvestigating Officer. Furthermore, there is no statement on record from any competent medical practitioner to establish that the son of the respondent No.2 was assaulted' Such generalized and sweeping allegations, unsupported by any concrete evidence or specific particulars, cannot form the basis for the criminal prosecution of the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 5' 14 lt is pertrnent 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 for constituting the offences under Section 498- A of IPC and Section 4 of the Act Mere mentloning of the names of the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 5, who are relatives 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.

15. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the I I Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the abo 'e decisions, \ this Court is of the considered opinion that in th ) absence of clear, direct, and substantive allegations i^ Jicating the involvement of the petitioners-accused Nos 5 continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 'l- rerefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-a{) )used Nos.2 to 5 are liable to be quashed

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is; allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petiticr ers-accused Nos.2 to 5 in C C No.TOB of 2023on thefile of I e learned lll Additional Judicial [tflagistrate of First Class Rangareddy Dlstrict at LB Nagar, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous a: tlications, if any, shall stand closed l' SD/. AHIl/ ED ABDULLA KHAN ASS STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional Judicial lVlagistrate of First Cla ss, Ranga Reddy Distict, L.B. Nagar

2. The Station House Officer, Women PS ,Rachakonda 3. One CC to SRI BAGLEKAR AKASH KUIVAR Advoca r [OPUC] 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OL T] 5. Two CD Copies ,,,..,. ':! ; I HIGH COURT DATED:28 tOBt2O2s -1r ,.,'.- C) CJ * 1t7t twTffi y' I Sra rCH t ORDER CRLP.No.14083 of 2024 ALLOWED CRLP IS "\r-f Icg \