Criminal Petition No. 15058 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. Thanam Keerthi Chandana, representing Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for the petitioner and the Mr. S. Prashanth, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. Criminal Petition No.15043 of 2024 Between: 1 2 -srikalahasthi - Tirukala Suguna, W/o. Jayachandra, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Housewife, Rr/o. H.No 16/135-1, Panagal Road, Village and Mandat, Tirupathi District. Tirukala Jayachandra, S/o. Late Muni Krishnaiah, Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.16/135-1, Panagal Ro?d, Siikalahasthi Viilage and Mandal, Tirupathi District. Tirukala Kishore, S/o. Jayachandra, Aged about 35 years. Occ: Doctoi, Rl/o. H.No.16/135-'1 Panagal Road, Srikalahasthi Vitlag6 and Mandat, Tirupathi District. ...Petitioners/A2, A3 & A4 AND 1 The High Court of Telangana, Judicature at Hyderabad, Rep. by its public Prosecutor, Telangana State, Hyderabad. ...Respondent No.i Tirukala -Himabindhu,, W/o. Muni Hemanth, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.5-2-248lg l115l9lN1, - Musthafanagdr Viilage, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. 2 ...Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.228 of 2024 on the file of Judicial First class Magistrate, special Mobile court at Khammam for the offences under Section 498-4,506 r/w.34 l.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 D.p. Act. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.22g o,f 2O2i on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court at Khammam for the offences under Section 498-4, 506 r/w.34 I.p.C. and Section 3 and 4 D.p. Act pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. Thanam Keerthi Chandana, Advocate representing Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr. s. Prashanth, Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ,-) ( THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETTTIO N Nos.15O58 AND 15043 OF 2o24 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are arising out of the same complaint. On the basis of a complaint lodged on

22.05.2024, F.l.R.No.56 of 2024 came to be registered at Women Police Station, Khammam, for the offences under Sections 498-A,506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 186O (for short, "IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. t

2. Heard I{s. Thanam Keerthi Chandana, iearned counsel representing Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. S.Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent representation on behalf of respondent No.2, in spite of State. No service of Notice. Perused the material on record'

3. Crl.P.No.15058 of 2024 is frled by petitioner/accused No.1, husband of respondent No.2-de facto complainant and Crl.P.No.15043 of 2024 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are mother-in-law, father-in-law and 2 JAK, J cRt.P 15058&15043 2024 brother-in-law of respondent No.2, seeking to quash proceedings against them in C.C.No.228 of 2024 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court at Khammam.

4. Allegations in complaint a_re as follow(s). Respondent No.2 rvas married to petitioner/accused No. I on 2L.O8.2021. Father of respondent No.2 a Coolie, at the time of marriage, gave cash of Rs.lO,OO,0OO l-, 22 tulas gold and other household articles worth Rs.2,50,000/-. Husband of respondent No.2 is a Software Engineer, they have a son. After marriage, respondent No.2 and accused No. I lived happily for six months and thereafter disputes arose. Respondent No.2 alleges she was being disrespected and harassed physically and mentally and suffered a paralytic stroke due to the harassment. Petitioner/ accused No.I purchased a house in Hyderabad and at house warming ceremony, a quarrel took place between husband of respondent No.2, and her in-laws. That she was being harassed for additional dowry of Rs. 1O,00,OOO/- and if not given, she would not be permitted to enter the house. 3 JAK, J CRLP 15058&15043 2024

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that allegations are baseless. It is further submitted that after marriage, both lived happily upto April, 2022' That in the month of Aprit, 2022, tespondent No.2 went to her parents house at Khammam, as she was pregnant' Learned counsel invited Court's attention to notice of June, 2022, issued for restitution of conjugal rights.

6. Learned counsel sr-rbmitted that in the month' of August, 2023, there was a quarrel at house warming ceremony. That accused No.1 and respondent No'2 stayed at Hyderabad from J:une, 2023 to August, 2023' It is pointed out that accused Nos.2 to 4 are residents of Srikalahasthi, that they never harassed respondent No'2, as alleged. Learned counsel submitted that as respondent No.2 was residing at Hyderabad, question of accused Nos'2 to 4 harassing respondent No.2 would not arise'

7. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Naragana and Others a' State 4 JAK, J CRLP r5058& 15043 2024 of Telangana and Anothert, it is submitted that Courts have to exercise caution to prevent misuse of legal provisions and to avoid unnecessal/ harassment of innocent family members. That there are no specific allegations indicating the active involvement of accused Nos.2 to 4.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l - State submitted that there are allegations of demand of additiona-l dowry, that accused Nos.l to 4 harassed respondent No.2 physically and mentatly for additional dowry. A quarrel during house warming ceremony took place and respondent No.2 was necked out of house Allegations are not only with regard to additional dowry, but also physical and menta,l harassment and that respondent.No.2 suffered a paralytic stroke and recovered and hence, no interference is necessitated,

9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. ' zozs atn 1sc1 rz: ) JAK, J CRLP t505E&15043 2024

10. F.l.R.No.56 of 2024 is registered on the basis of complaint dated 22.05.2024 in the Women Police Station, Khammam, for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Marriage of respondent No.2 was performed with accused No.1 on 2l .O8.2O21 . Father of respondent No.2 is a coolie and at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.10,00,00O/-, 22 tulas of gold and household articles worth Rs.2,50,000/- were given. Accused No.l is a Software Engineer. Both lived happily for six months. Respondent No.2 came to Khammam to reside with her parents, when she was two months pregnant. In June, 2022, accused No.l issued a legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights and after notice, both lived together. Accused No.1 purchased a house in Hyderabad, ln August, 2023, during house warming ceremony, a quarrel took place. It is alleged that during house warming ceremony, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4 asked for additional dowry and that a panchayat was held and counselling was conducted for both families. 6 JAK, J CRLP 15058&15043 2024 1 1. From the contents of charge sheet ald statements recorded by the police, it is observed that quarrel took place in August, 2023, complaint is lodged o422.05.2024. There is no explanation as to why the complaint was lodged after 9 months. No specific date(s) of panchayats are mentioned Except stating that accused Nos.2 to 4 threatened, harassed mentally and physically, no specific allegations or overt acts with specific details are forthcoming either from complaint or charge sheet or in the statements recorded except general statements that there was a demald

12. It is reflected in charge sheet that accused Nos.2 to 4 are residents of Srikalahasthi. Accused No.1 is a Software employee, employed at Hyderabad. When queried, it is stated by learned counsel for petitioners that during August, 20.23, employees of Software Industry were "Working from Home". There was a house warming ceremony in August, 2023, at Hyderabad, prior to that ceremony, both stayed together and there is no statement that accused Nos.2 to 4 stayed at Hyderabad with them. It is evident that accused Nos.2 to 4 visited Hyderabad for 7 JAK, J cRLp 15058& 15043-2024 house wa-rming ceremony and a quarrel took place' There are no specific allegations against accused Nos'2 to 4' either prior to house warming ceremony'or after August' 2023. Corfients of complaint' charge sheet and statements recorded are similar anrl content is same' Statements appear repetitive that accused' Nos'2 to 4 harassed respondent No.2 PhYsica-llY and mentallY and threatened for additional dowry' Most of the respondent No'2 statements made are directed towards accused No' 1' as seen from record'

13. It defres the logic of this Cotrrt' as to how accused Nos.2 to 4 could harass respondent No'2 physically' when they are residing at Srikalahasthi' It is not the case of respondent No.2 that accused Nos'2. to 4 rvere instigating accusedNo.inortheyvisitedHyderabadfrequently.Itis observedfromtherecordthatrespondentNo.2wasresiding at Khammam with her pa-rents from second month of her pregnancy and later at Hyderabad from June' 2023 and complaint is lodged at Khammam (her parents place)' 8 JAK, J CRLP 1505E& 15043 2024 - ..1

14. On a perusal of the entire record, it is evident that allegations against accused Nos.2 to 4 are vague and there a-re no specific allegations of the active involvement of accused Nos.2 to 4, nor any specific details of physica-l and mental harassment are reflected in the record.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Naragana (supra) held as follows: "25. A mere reference to the names of family in a criminal case arising out ol a members matrimonial dispute, n,ithout specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husbald's family whcn domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized a-llegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innobent family members. In ih" p.""..rt .^"", appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.l 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 ald the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specihc allegations made against each of them. 9 JAK, J CRLP 15058&15043 2024

28. The inclusion of Section 49BA 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 disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord .and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse piovisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife' Making vague and generalised allegations -{u1inS ma"trimonial .o.r]fli.t", if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife anJ/ or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband uia ni" family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them'"

16. On a perusal of the record, it can be inferred that family members of accused No' 1 are shown as accused without any specifrc allegations indicating their active involvement. Allegations are general in nature, unsupported by any evidence, no particula-rized allegations are forthcoming. Family members are residents of Srikalahasthi, both husband and wife were living at Hyderabad. Respondent No.2 was residing at her parents place from second month of pregnancy' a notice for l0 JAK, J CRLP 15058&15043 2024 n' \ restitution of conjugal rights is issued in June, 2022. Frorn June, 2023 the couple were living in Hyderabad. House warming ceremony of the new flat was in August, 2023. No allegation of physical and mental harassment against accused Nos.2 to 4 prior to complaint. Allegations stem out of the quarrel at the house-warming ceremony, it is reflected that disrespect was shown to the family members of accused No.l and accused harassed her for the ill treatment. Complaint is in May, 2024, lodged after 9 months of quarrel. Nothing is specifically stated against accused Nos.2 to 4 alter the quarrel. Everything revolves around the quarrel, one incident of quarrel seems to have given rise to allege accusations against accused Nos.2 to 4, though, they were residing at Srikalahasthi and respondent No.2 at Khammam. There is any amount of doubt created with respecf to the allegations in their absence. L7. Having considered the entire factual matrix of the case, rn respect of Crl.p.No.15043 of 2024, this Court is of the considered opinion that proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No .22g of 2024 on t" JAK, J CRLP 1505E&t5043 2024 the hle of Judicial First Class Magistrate' Special Mobile Court at Khammam, e.re liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.

18. In respect of Crl.P.|Io.15058 of 2024, this Court is of the opinion that the appearance of petitioner/accused No'1 in C.C.No.228 of 2024 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court at Khammam' can be dispensed with arrd is accordingly dispensed with certain conditions,asitisstatedthatheisanemployeeinsoftware I I company at HYderabad.

19. Petitioner/accused No'1 shall hle an affidar"it before thetria-lCourtthathewillnotdisputehisidentity,that proceedings can go on in his absence to be conducted by his counsel. Petitioner/ accused No'1 shall not dispute the proceedings conducted in his absence' It is made clear that petitioner/accused No.1 shall present himself when required by trial Court. This order shall stand vacated automatically, if petitioner/ accused No' 1 fail s to attend the proceedings, when required by tJl" Court' Any observations made in this order shall not have a bearing or t2 JAK, J CRLP r5058&15043 2024 tr,'r.. \ influence on the trial Court, while considering the case during trial or while concluding.

20. Accordingly, Crl.P.No.15043 of 2024 is allowed and Crl.P.No.15058 of 2O24 is disposed of with the conditions stated supra Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha_li stand closed. Sd/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To SECTIONbFFICER District. 1 Il" J,udicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobite Court at Khammam 2. The Station House Officer, Khammam Women Folice Station, Khammam 3- Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 1 9n" 99 to Mr. Rapotu Bhaskar, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] ( HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.l 5058 and 1 504 \: s I() f2 l/\ Ac).v s* \ D.'z+ -_:.-- ':_:.' CRLP.NO.15043 of 20241S ALLOWED CRLP.No.15058 ot 20241S DISPOSED OF \