The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Publc Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the state of Telangana

2. Gajula Shashi Priya, Wo Krishna, Aged about 23 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o.Sarapaka Village. Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, TS, ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS - 2 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that n the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition -re Hrgh Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No.6O6 of 2A)-'. on the file of the Judicial First Class lVlagtstrate, At Bhadrachalam for the of ( lces U/Sec 498(4) lPC, Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and to grant. l.A. NO:1 oF 2023 Petition under Sectron 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition t re High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings Includinrl appearance of the petitioners in CC No 6OG of 2022 on the file of the . udicial First-Class Magistrate, At Bhadrachalam for the offences U/S 498(A) lP() Section 3 and 4 of DP Act pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and to pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing SUBHAN PASHA, Advocate for the Petitroner and Assistant Publrc Prosecutor on behalf of the appeared for the ResPondent No.2 perusing rl: Memorandum of the argun) nts of Sn llTIOHD Srj l\il.Vive< rnanda Reddy, the Responde. No.l and none The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUS'TICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRTMINAL PETITIO N No.12958 OF 2023 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 606 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magislrate of First Class at Bhadrachalam, against the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 8, for the offences punishable under Section 498-4 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "lPC") and Sections 3 and 4 olthe Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, "DP Act").

2. Heard Sri A.Dheeraj, learned counsel representing Sri Mohd the petitioners; Subhan Pasha, learned counsel for Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, lcarned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I , and Sri Sambhashiva Rao, Ieamed counsel representing Ms.Sureddy Priyanka, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Tlre case of the prosecutior-r in brief is lhat 11 09 '2022 at about 11:00hours,thecomplainant,submittedawrittencomplaintalleging that her marriage with accused No.i was performed on 22'05 '2021 as per Hindu customs. She stated that her parents had given Rs 20 lakhs as dowlv 3nd gold omaments at the time of marriage' After the I 2 - marriage, accused No. I and accuscd Nos.2 to 8 allcpt l ly demanded additional dou,ry, harassed her both mentally and r rysically, and even attempted to kill hcr by lcakrng gas in a nrorn. hcy allegedly abused her and dernanded arr additional amount ()l ts. 25 lakhs. Basing on the sarne, the present cornplaint has becn fi lr:,

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits th,r thc marriage between accused No. l/petitioner No. I and responr r rt No. 2 was solemniscd on 22.05.2021 . 'fhcrcaltcr, disputcs arcsc I etu,ccn therr. In the presence of eldcrs, accused No. I un, rcspondent No. 2 entered into a settlentcnt by rvay ol'a N{,: rorandum of Urrderstanding (MoU) dated 30.12.2021, wherein rh: , spccrfically mentioned that it is not possiblc lbr them to live togt:r rer, and both parties desired to live scparatcly and agreed to ol-r rrn a mutua I consent decree ol'dtvorce lrorn the competent Court. l, lrsuirn t to the said seftlement, the family of accused No. I agrced r r pav a total amount of Rs. l4 lakhs towards pcrmanent alirnon, rrnd paid an amount of Rs. ,1 lakhs at the timc o1'execution of thc NI r [J, while the remaining Rs. t 0 lakhs werc dcposited in the acco.r rts ol elders representing both accused No. I and respondent No. 2. \ /hen accuscd No. I approached respondcnt No. 2 to give her constr I lcrr liling a mutual divorce, respondent No. 2 ref used for thc san r, anrl, on the 3 other hand, demanded an additionai amount of Rs. l0 lakhs. At that stage, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against accused No. I and his famiry on t7.09.2022. Basing on rhe same, crime No. 190 of 2022 was registered for the off.ences under Section 49g_A of the IpC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act. Accused No. I also lodged a complaint against respondent No. 2 and her family on 20.10.2023. Basing on rhe same, Crime No. 254 of 2023 was registered for the offences under Sections 420,3g4,504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IpC. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioners lurther submitted that accused No. I and respondent No. 2 lived together only for a short period of20 days after their marriage, and neither accused No. I nor accused Nos.2 to g demanded any additional dowry as alleged in the complaint. Respondent No. 2 Iodged the complaint conhary to the MoU dated 30.12.2021 . Respondcnt No. 2 made false allcgations against petitioner Nos. 2 to g, who are the lamily members of accused No. l, by making omnibus allegations against them. .lhe of Section 49g-A of the IpC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not attracted against accused No. I or accused Nos. 2 to g. The lnvestigating Officer, without properly conducting the investigation, filed the final report by merely extracting the verv ingredients 4 - sarne allegations lcvelled in the complaint. Hence, corr inuation of the proceedings against the petitioners amounts to clelrr abuse of the process ol law, and the same is liable to be quashed

6. Per atnlrtt,learned counsel lilr respondent No I submits tllat. nrcrely on the basis of the MoU dated 30. 12.202 I , ac :used No l is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings e ithet ,gainst himsclf or against the other accused, as the said document is not legally biniling. There arc specific allegations levelled again:t the petitioners rcgarding the trarassment allegedly caused by tltt:t r. Hcnce, the ingredients of tlic oflfences under Section 498-4 'r thc IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ar: attracted- ['hc contentions raised by the leamed counsel for the peli ioners involve disputed questions of fact, which have to be adjudic r ed by the trial C'ourt alter a full-fledged trial. 'Iherelbre, the pet I oners arc not entitled to seck quashing of the proceedings. 1 . 'fhe leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor reile ated the r ery same submissions made by the learned counsel for rcsp:ndent No.2.

8. Having considered the rival submissions nade by the respective parties and on perusal of the material availl I le on record, it is reveals that thc marriage of accused No. i with ri:t pondent No. 2 rvas solemnised on 22.05.2021 . Within a short span o time, dispLrtes 5 arose between thcm. According to the petitioners, accused No. I and respondent No. 2 have been living separately since 30. 12.2021 .

9. Learned counsel lor the petitioners, relying upon the MoU dated 30.12.2021, contended that by virtue of the said MoU, both parties began living separately and had allegedly obtained a divorce in the presence of elders. It is further contended that the subsequent complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 is impermissible in law.

10. lnsofar as the contention that respondent No. 2 lodged the complaint contrary to the terms and conditions of the MoU dated

30.12.2021 is concemed, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission on the ground that the "divorce" said to have been obtained under the MoU in the presence of elders cannot be recognised in law.

11. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs on 22.05.2021 , and therefore, any dissolution of marriage must necessarily be obtained from a competent Court under the I'Iindu Maniage Act. llence, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioners that, by virtue of the MoU dated 30. 12.2021, the police ought not to have entertained the complaint lodged by respondent No . 2 on 17 .09.2022. - 6 l,2. Alter perusal of the cornplaint as we Il as t rc charge sheet, it is reveals that there are no specific allegations lere led against accused Nos.2 to 8. Respondent No.2 has made on.r ibus allegations by implicating all family mcmbc r ; of accused No. I. Such allegations do not attract the ingreJ cnts of the off.encc under Section 498-4. of the IpC or Sections 3 ; rd 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

13. It is pertinent to mention that the Iaw gover ring the exercise of inhcrcnt po*,ers under Section 482 Cr.p.C. or rl ( extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articre 226 is weil settred by tr: decision in statc of llarvana r,. Bhajan Lalr, wherein the Ht r,blc Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cascs rvat rnting quashment, such as rvhen the allegations taken at face value I I not constitute an ol{ence. are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala tldcs. or whcre continuance ofproceedings would i utoullt to abuse of. proccss, while cautioning that such power must b,: sparingly invoked [o securc the ends oljustice.

14. It is also relevant to mention that in Geddrrr r Jtransi v. State of Tclanganar, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiteratec he principles that were invoked to quash criminal proceedings r-rnd,: Sections 49g_A, '1991 t lo25 supp (l) SCC 115 :iCC ( )ni_ilc S( 26I ! I 7 506 lPC, Sections 3 and 4 of thc Dowry prohibition Act, 1961, and the Domestic Violence Act,2005, in so far as they related to the husband's aunt and cousin, as the allegations against them were found to be omnibus and general, berelt of specific overt acts, resting merely on hearsay evidence, and further weakened by the lact that they resided separately from the matrimonial home. The Court held that dragging such distant relatives into criminal prosecution, in the absence of clear particulars of harassment or dowry demand, squarely attracted the Bhajan Lal principles, and permitting the proceedings to continue would be nothing but an abuse o[ the process ol law, though the trial against the principal accused the husband and mother- in-law was allowed to proceed in accordance with law.

15. lt is already stated supra that there are no specific allegations levelled against accused Nos. 2 to 8 regarding harassment or demand for additional dowry. Respondent No. 2 has implicated accuscd Nos. 2 to 8 by making omnibus allegations. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 2 to S/accused Nos. 2 to 8 amounts to a clear abuse of thc process of law. Insofar as accused No. I is concemed, there arc specific allegations levelled against him. 'fherefore, this Court is not B inclined to quash the procecdings against petitioner N' l/accused - No. 1

16. For the fbregoing reasons as well as the principl': laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal supra ar I Geddam Jhansi .srrprz, this Court is of the considered opinion t r It it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P'C t I quash the proceedings against thc pctitioner Nos.2 to 8.

11. In t]tc result, thc crirninal petition is partly i:l owed The proceedings against the pctitioner Nos.2 to 8 in C.C. No' '06 r'tt 20ZZ on the file of the Judicial i\'lagistrate of First Class at Bh 'drachalam, are llereby quashed. It is rnade clear that any ofthe observ ttions made in this ordcr arc only confined for the purpose of decidinrl :his case' As a sequel, rliscellaneous petitions pending, i any, shall stand closerl SD/-KtHAVANI SWAMY ISSIST qruT REGISTRAR 6 ri:CTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1

2. 4 q The Judicial lvlagrstrate of First Class' Bhadrachalam The Station House Offtcer' poti"" St'tion Burgampad' Eil adrachalam Kothaqudem Drstrict iY: cffi ilpuaurc PRosECUToR' Hish court at t-l lerabad (our) #:iEio"sR] Moio suaHnN PASHA Advocate [oPt c] - Two CD Copies IPK,PSI r+ HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 ORDER CRLP.No.12958 ot 2023 .i- -) \.' ) \ 1'r \. ,, \\r t t t.ii t ri25 I ,l_,,,- ,,-,1.-\' ,/ --- CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED (+ t)-

1.\ @