The High Court · 2025

The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court for state of Telangana. Smt. Vandana Kumari Goutham, Wo. Vishal Kumar Chandel, age- 35 years, Occ- Pvt Services, Rlo. 11-1241.4 Road No.6, Near Geetha ydga CeiG ' Sri Rama Krishnapuram, Saroor Nagar, R.R. Diskict. ...Petitioners/Acc used ...Respondents/Compla inant 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 the C.C.No.1462 ol 2021 dt.24to2l2o21 on the file of Hon'ble V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L. B. Nagar, against the petitioners. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 including appearance of petitioners in c.c.No.1462 of 2021 d1.241o212021 on the fite of Hon'bte v Addl. Metropotitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of criminal petition. c RIMINAL PETITION No: 46 o'[.?Q21 Between:

1. Chandel Anitha Bai, Aged about 50 years, Wo C. Prabhulal, Occ Home Maker, R/o. H.No.10-2-78, Laxmi Nagar, Slum Area, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad'

2. Chandel Prabhulal, Sio. Rathanlal, Aged about 64 years' Occ House -Hold, R/o. H.No.10-2-78, Laxmi Nagar, Slum Area, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, 500028 3. Chandel Vimal, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Pvt. Emp-loyee,Rlo. 10-2-77-78, Laxmi Nagar, Slum Area, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, 500028. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2,3 and 7 AND 1 The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High Court for State of 2 Telangana. Smt. Vandana Kumari Goutham, Wo. Vishal Kumar Chandel, Age. 35 years, Occ. Pvt. Servrces, Rlo.11-12-414, Road No.6, Near Geetha Yoga Centre, Sri Rama Krishnapuram, Saroor Nagar, R.R. District. ...Respondents 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 the C.C.No.'1462 of 2021 d1.241O212021 on the file of Hon'ble V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L. B. Nagar, against the petitioners. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 including appearance of petitioners in C.C.No.1462 of 2021 dt.2410212021 on the file of Hon'ble V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pramod Singh, Advocate for the Petitioners and M. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri L.Harish, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.45 and 46 ot 2024 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1462 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned V Additional t\tletropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 of the lndian Penat Code, 1860 (for short 'lpC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, '1961.

2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.1462 of 2021 ,lhey are heard together and disposed of by way of this common

3. Heard Mr. Pramod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, tr/r. L Harish, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facfo complainant and Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

4. The petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the mother, father, two sisters and two brothers of accused No.1 , respectively. According to the complaint, the only allegation against the petitioners_ accused Nos.2 to 7 is that dowr1, 1,yss given by the parents of de facto 2 - complainant to accused No.'r at the time of marriage, pursuant to the demand allegedly made by the petitioners herein along with accused No.1. When accused No.1 was harassing de facto complainant, her mother handed over the gold to petitioner_accused No.3. lt is further alleged that when the de facto comprainant became pregnant and was neglected by accused No.1, she informed the same to petitioner-accused No.2, but she too failed to take any care of her. 5' rt is contended by the rearned counser for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsery impricated in the case by the de facfo complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimoniar disputes between de facto comprainant and accused No.1. rt is contended that accused No.1 and de facto comprainant are staying away from the family of accused No.1. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant on 0g.06.2020, whereas, the marriage of de faclo comprainant with accused No..r was pe,-formed on 31 03.2019. The reason for such deray arso remained unexprained. It is arso contended that except bard ailegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. He further submits that accused No.'l and the de facto complainant have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, dated 26.09.2024, wherein, the parties have set,ed all the disputes between them in which' there is a crause to the effect that the de factocomprainant shall withdraw the cases pending against the petitioners herein and 3 accused No.1. ln spite of such clause, the present criminal case is not withdrawn, even though accused No.1 has paid Rs.9,00,0001 out of Rs.'12,00,000/- to the de facto comprainant towards permanent arimony through the Demand Drafts, dated 06.09.2024 and 30.09.2024. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Learned counser for respondent No.2-de facfo comprainant submits that the petitioners herein, along with accused No.1, have harassed lhe de facto comprainant by demanding additionar dowry and also pressurized her to register the house in her mother,s name to accused No.1. Due to the harassment ailegedry made by the petitioners herein and accused No- 1, the pregnancy or de facto complainant was terminated. The petitioners and accused No.1 forced her to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding, dated 26.0g.2024 and she was forced to sign on the withdraw memo of M.c. case. A mutuar consent divorce petition is also pending between the parties. There are specific allegations against the petitioners, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. on the other hand, the rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor contended that arr the accused, incruding the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been 4 lodged. lt is further contended that ail the ailegations reveiled in the complaint as wefl as in the charge sheet are subject matter of triar, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 8 For the sake of convenience, Section 49g_A of IpC is extracted hereunder

4984. Husband or relative of subjecting her to cruetty.- husband of a woman Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation._ For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-(3)any wilfut conduct whtich is of such a nalure as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or' health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(!)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlavvfut demand for any propefiy or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

9. ln the judgment of Sfafe of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon,ble Supreme Court held as follows: .,.Th9 fgilowins categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary po*., ,riii-i,tiJt"'zia o, the inherent powers under Se;fion 482 Cr.p.C- "ii ou exercised the High Coutt either to prevent anus" if ne process of any Couft or otherwise to secure the ends if iistice, ,!::!!"i, mlf njt.be..oo2sibte to tay aoin iry pru"ii'li"u,rv ::_,::",! inl sufficienily .channetised and inneiitje guidelinis or r:gto tornlutag and to give an exhaustive list of miriad kinds of cases wherein such power shoutd be exercised: -by I t e92 scc 1cr1 +zr I i i (1) Where the allegations made in the First lnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case accused; 'against (2) Wherg tlte allegations in the First lnformation Repofi and other mateials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose offence, justifying an investigation by potice a -.cognizable -under Section 156(1) of the Code Zrcept inder an officers order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section lSS(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and lhe evidence collected in supporl of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non_cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by i police officei without an order of a Magistrate as contemplaied under Section 1SS(2) of the Code; (5) Wh.ere the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inheren y improbabte on fhe basls which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; 'of (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under *nicn criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and " continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provtsrcn in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved pafiy; (7) yh?lg a criminat proceeding is manifes y attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wriking ,"ngiin". on the accused and with a view to spite him dle toirivate and personal grudge. 10' ln the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. sfafe of Telangana and anothef, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.31 and 32 held that: '2024 INSC 953 6 -I "31. Fudher, this Court in preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 hetd that the coufts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and muit take pragmatic realties into ionsideration wiite dealing wiih matrimonial cases_ Ihe altegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been tiving in differeni cities and never visited or rarely visited the ptace where the contplainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the comptainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. We, thereforg;. a.re of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to set e personal scores and grudges against appellant No_1 and his family members i.e., appe ait Nos.l2 b 6 herein. Hence, the present iase at hand failts'within category 0) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan tal. fnierefoie, .in the present iase, ened ii not exercising the the High Court, powers avaitabte to it under Section 402 CrpC anA thirelty failed to prevent of the Court,s process by continuing hL criminal prosecution against the appeiants.,, .abuse

11. 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 regar 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 rpc against the husband and his famiry 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 against the husband and his famiry members before prosecuting the husband and his family members.

12. ln the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between de facto complainant and accused No.1 . The petitioners-accused Nos.2 lo 7, who are the family members of accused 7 No.1, are staying away from the family of de facto complainant and accused No.1. Therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the de facto complainant. Though the marriage between de facto complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized on 31.03.2019, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant on

08.06.2020. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No.'l physically assaulted her and driven her out of the matrimonial home on the very first night of marriage. lf really there was harassment as alleged in the complaint from the very inception of the marriage, the de facto complainant would have complained at an earlier point of time. The complaint does not offer any plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint.

13. Apart from that, a perusal of the record would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners herein. Not even a single instance of harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry had been referred against the petitioners, except stating that the petitioner-accused No.2 failed to take care of lhe de facto complainant, when accused No.'l neglected her during her pregnancy. lt is stated in the complaint that when accused No.1 was harassing the de facto complainant, her mother handed over gold to petitioner-accused No.3. However, the complaint fails to specify the nature or description of the gold or ornaments so handed over. There are no specific allegations I t 8 -r against the petitioners herein explaining as to how they have voruntariry caused hurt or committed criminal breach of trust.

14. The whole genesis of allegations levelled in the FIR and charge sheet revolves around accused No..l_husband and his conduct. However, it is evident from the record that accused No..l and the de facto comprainant have entered into a Memorandum of understanding, dated 26.09.2024 and a mutual consent divorce petition is also pending. Out of the agreed sum of Rs..12,00,000/_, accused No..l has paid Rs.9,00,000/- to the de faclo complainant towards permanent alimony, by way of Demand Drafts, dated 06.09.2024 and 30.09.2024 |t is also admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2_de facto comprainant that Rs.6,00,000/- was paid by accused No.1. Nevertheress, lhe de facto comprainant has not taken any steps to withdraw the cases in C.C.Nos.1462 of 2021 and 46g8 of 2023,which is contrary to law. 15. ln view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 7 cannot be put to the ordear of triar especiary when there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment for or in relation to demand of dowry against them

16. Accordingly, these Criminal petitions are allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 in c.c.No 1462 9 r l of 2021 pending on the file of the learned V Additional Magistrate of at Cyberabad at L.B Nagar lVletropolitan Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- A.PRATHIMA UTY REGISTRAR D I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additio.nal Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar 2. The Station House officer, sarooinagar wp's porice Station, Richakonda 3. Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High bourt for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri Pramod Singh, Advocate [OpUC] ! 9n" CC to Sri L Harish, Advocate tOpUCI 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] ABK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2910812025 , c. \} i1 =\ ztl StP mffi i:. t -x COMMON ORDER CRLP Nos 45 and 46 OF 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS \ 2\