The High Court · 2025

1. The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Telangana, Hyderabad &

2. Ms. Gangireddy Anuradha, W/o Sri. K. Arun kumar and D/o late G. Pandurangam, aged about 42 yearc, occ: Business, R/o H.No. 15-3-545, Gowliguda Chaman, Afzalgunl, Hyderabad - 500 012. ...RESPON DENTS/COMPLAI NANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in connection with the case bearing No. C.C. No. 1242 Ol 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad, quash the same. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that rr the circumstances stated rn the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, th,,: High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings and D spense with the attend a n ce/Person a I appearance of the Petitioners/Accus :cl herein in C.C.No. 1242 Of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Xlll Addition rl Chief l\,4etropolitan lvlagistrate, at Manoran jan Complex, Hyderabad. pending lisposal of the above mentioned Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arEUments of Sri V SRINIVASULU, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRI M.RAIVACHANDRA REDDY, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangarra on behatf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P VIKRAM KUMAR, Iearned counsel representing R.RANGANATHAN Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.14726 of 2024 * DATED 5 DECEMBER. 2025 Between Kokkula Arun Kumar and five others Petitioners AND The State of Telangana represented by the Public Prosecutor and one another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition rs filed by the petitioners-accused Nos 1 to 6 seekrng to quash the proceedings against them in C.C No 1242 of 2024 on the file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief IVletropolitan N/lagistrate at [Vlanoranjan Complex, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-4, 406, 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act')

02. Heard Sri V Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P Vikram Kumar, learned counsel 2 i:,1: representing Sri R.Ranganathan, learned r;cunsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri lV.Ramachandra leddy, learned Additional public prosecutor for the State_re;pondent No..1 Perused the r"ecord 03 ln brief, the case of the prosecu ir:n is that the marriage between the petitioner_accused \0.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 20 0l2019 lt is alleged that ever since the marriage, the petr:ioner_accused Nos l to 6 have subjected the respondent Nrt iZ to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their un arnrful demand for additional dowry. lt rs further allegecl that ihe accused No. 1 rs not fit for family life and used to postc,lne physical relations on one pretext or another. lt is allegr:ci that due to the unbearable harassment by the petitioner;, respondent No.2 went to her parents, house and stayed fireru 1or. ,*o months. lt is further alleged that on 10.022020, respondent No.2 received a phone call from accused No 1, urho directed her to join him and threatened that if she failed tc, do so, she would be dragged onto the street. Conse,luenfly, she returned to her in_laws, house, but again th: petitioners allegedly harassed her both mentally and phy,;i:ally It is 3 further alleged that accused No.'1 married respondent No.2 only for societal appearance and not for leading a proper marital life, and that he has been maintaining an illicit relationship with his cousin, lt/lekala Saritha. Based on these allegations, respondent No 2 lodged the present complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-4, 406, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and that they never subjected respondent No 2 to any form of harassment. lt is submitted that the petitioner-accused No 1 is the husband, the petitioner- accused No.2 is the mother-in-law, the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 are the sisters-in-laws of the respondent No.2, and petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 6 are the husbands of petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5. lt is further submitted that petitioners-accused Nos.'1 to 6 never harassed respondent No.2, and that petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between respondent No.2 and petitioner-accused No.1. lt is contended that the 4 petitioners have never made any demand 1or dowry from respondent No 2 and that there are no specifrc r:,r substantive allegatlons against them. lt is further subrrrtted that the contents of the complaint and the charge s,heet do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary t(, ,:ronstitute the alleged offences lt is also contended that, on one hand, respondent No.2 aileged that petitroner-accus:rJ No.1 is not fit for family life. and on the other hand, sh: alleged that accused No.1 is having an illegal relationship r,r,itn his cousrn, which itself clearly indicates that the present :<implaint has been filed with vague allegations. Hence, leirrred counsel prayed for quashing the proceedings againr;t petitioners_ accused Nos.1 to 6 05 With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 while priry,ing for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the Honourabre supreme court of rndia in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana atnd anothey' wherein the Honourable Supreme Court 0,, lrrdia at Paragraph Nos 18, 24,25,28,29,3i & 32 held that ' AtR zozs supRevE couRT 173 5 ,18 A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the atlegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than clatming 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 pafticular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, ciate, 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 hancl 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. /t 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 crimina! 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 iudicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic dlsputes arlse out of a matimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsuppofted by concrete evidence or parlicularised allegations cannot form the basls for criminal 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 tiving in different cities and have not resided in the 6 matimonial house of appeltant No.1 and res;.;c,rtdenl No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be clragge;.| into crimtnal prosecution and the same woutd be Jtt tbuse of the process of the taw in the absence of str.ec;lfic allegations nade against each of them.

28. The inclusion of Section 49BA of the lpc b,,,way of an amendment was intencjed to curb iruettly inflicted on a woman by her husband and his fi:mil1| ensuring swift intervention by the State. Howrrver, in recent years, as there have been a notable rrse in ntatrimonial dr'spules across the ccuntry, accornpanied by growing discord and tension lrithin the institution of marriage, consequen y, the"e has b^een a growing tendency lo misuse provisio t:: tike Section ,1984 of the lpC as a tool for unlea:,hing personal vendetta against the husband and hrs fitntily by a tuife. Makittg vague ancl generalised allec,aiion:: during mattintonial conflicts. if nol scrutiniz^7 .viIt leed to lhe rnrsuse of legal processes itt)a, art encouragement for use of arm twisting tactic: .ty a wife and/or lrcr family. Someflmes, recourse is t,.:ken to inv oke Sectior-t 49gA of the tpC againt;t the husband ancl his famity in order to seek iomplitince with the unreasonable demands of a rtife. Consequen y, this Couft has, time and agratn, c-autioned against prosecuting the husband u,,i hi" family in the absence of a clear prima facie c,ase against them.

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any wttnan who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has bee,n contemplated under Section 4ggA of the IpC s.t<;utc| remain silent and forbear hersetf from makix; a co:iplaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. T,tiet is not the intention of our aforesaid observations btrt we should not encourage a case tike as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petitiort for dissolution of marriage sought by the firs;t appe,lr,,,t1,_ ', husband of the second respondent nj'"i"i,,,- complaint under Section 49gA of the tpC is lodge d by the latter. ln fact, the inseftion of tne saiA proiitn i meant mainly for the protection of a woman wlto is 7 subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometlmes lt ls mlsused as in the present case. 31 . Fufther, this Coutt in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the coutis have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visiled 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 care and circumspection.

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 seff/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 al 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."

06. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which are triable issues. The truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition 1 8 07 A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioner_accuse,c No.1 is the husband, the petitioner_accused No.2 is th= mother_in_law aged about 74 years, the petrtioners-accusercr Nos.3 and 5 are the sisters_in_law of the respondent I,Jo.2 and the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 6 are the hus;bands of the petitioner-accused Nos 3 and 5 respectively Though the charge sheet afleges that the petitione rs cJemanded additional dowry, it does not specify or quan:ily the alleged demand, nor does rt furnish any particulars a:; to the nature cr extent of such alleged demand. 08 On a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, it is evident that certain allegations ha,rer been made to the effect that the petitioner-accused No 1 is unfit for family life, that he used to postpone marital int:r.course on a weekly basis that he allegedly maintainel an rl[cit relationship with his cousin, and that he s uolected the respondent No 2 to physical and mentai harassment and also threatened her It is further evident that t-rtl petitioner_ accused No.2 is an old aged mother, and tht: petitioners_ accused Nos.3 and 5 are the married sisters of the accused 9 No 1, while the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 6 are their respective husbands, all of whom reside separately with their families. However, the charge sheet is bereft of any specific details or descriptive particulars of the alleged acts of harassment attributed to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, and does not disclose any overt acts constituting their involvement. The overall tenor of the allegations indicates that the respondent No.2 is primarily aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner-accused No.1. 09 Upon a careful scrutiny of the averments in the charge sheet, it is evident that, in order to substantiate the allegations levelled therein, the police have examined a total of five witnesses. Out of them, three are the respondent No.2 and her close relatrves, who are admittedly interested witnesses; one witness though shown as an independent witness, appears to be only a hearsay witness; and the remaining witness is the lnvestigating Officer. 10 tVlaking vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of \ 10 arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 4gg_A of the lpC against the husband and his family in order to seek cornpliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Theref rre, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any pr;nra facie case against the husband ancl his family menrbers before prosecuting them. Hence, the petitroners_accused Nos.2 to 6 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution ernd the same would be an abuse of process of the law in t-rr: absence of specific allegations made against each of thern 11 Except for the bald and omnibus erllegations, no substantial or specific allegations have been nrade against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 6 The charlyer sheet does not attribute even a single definite instance of cruelty, harassment, or any specific demand for cloyypy to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 ln the abs;ernce of any cogent material or particularized allegations constituting cruelty or harassment in connection with dow.y subjecting the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 to the ril;ours of trial would be wholry unjustified and wourd amount t. an abuse of the process of law. 11 /'' ,..,, ,,.:.

12. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the CASC including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 are liable to be quashed 13 , Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 6 in C.C.No.'1 242 of 2024 on the file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief IVletropolitan lVlagistrate at [/lanoran.ian Complex, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed 14 lnsofar as the petitioner-accused No 1 is concerned, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this Order, and to conclude the trial as possible. However, the Personal expeditiously AS appearance of the petitioner-accused No.1 before the learned trial Court shall stand dispensed with, except when 1-2 his presence is specifically required during the course of the al, subject to the condition that he s.rall be duly represented by hls learned counsel on each arrd every date of hearing As a sequel, pending mlscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sdi- B. Rekha Rani ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ \Ecrroru oFFrcER To Hyderabad [OUTI

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at-Na npally, Hyderabad. 2 The S^tation House Officer, Wp'S f jst 2",i,ii"fti.'Stat on, Hyderabad citv. 3. rwo CCs to the pubric prosecui"; H,s;;;rl;;;h;;i;;;i,rdl?igli,ii'li 1 9n" CC to SRr V SRrtllvRSULU. Advocate [OpUc] ! 9n" CC to SRI VTKRAM rUl,leC,'novoiit"lOe-utf 6. Two CD Copies lr,/y HIGH COURT DATED: 0511212025 - ":aa j,' Ir ( q ) ( * l..i n ,1 z .P I-'lt_ :-:-' :.1-i i- -*.,;\1.4: :i "' ORDER CRLP.No.14726 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION GV11