G.Linga Reddg a. M.Dhanna Raju and anotheF, Bqirqm Muralid,har v. State of Telanganaa, Manilal Keshri and others u. State oJ Bthar and anothets, Da

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 call for the records pertaining to the CC.No.1033 OF 2024 dated 15-04-2024, on the file of the Hon'ble Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanamakonda and quash the same against these petitioners/ accused number 4 and 5. 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 in CC No. 1033 of 2024 daled 15-04- 2024 on the file the Hon'ble Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cu rl- Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanamakonda including the sus,pension of execution of proceedings of NBW in the said case as against the accused number 4 and 5 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 Sri Banda Prasada Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.Surepalli Prasada Rao, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondr:nt No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JI'STICE ANIL KT'IIAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.15217 OF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by petitioners/ accused Nos.4 and 5 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1O33 of 2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanamkonda.

2. Heard Mr. Banda Prasada Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the material on record. Notice served on respondent No.2, no representation.

3. On the basis of a complaint dated 10.07.2023, arr FIR bearing No.196 of 2023 came to be registered in the Women Police Station, Warnagal, under Sections 498-,{, 323, 506, 42O of IPC an Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short DP Act')

4. It is the case of complainant/respondent No.2 that she was married to accused No. 1, on 09.12.2022, at the time of marriage .i: I 2 JAK, J C.RLP 152t7 2024 Rs.18,00,OOO/- cash, 15 tulas of gold and hous;ehold articles were given as dowry with marriage expenses of Rs.1,5,00,000/ -. It is further averred that she was physically and mentally harassed for additional dowry, to register the plot on her father-in-law's name, she was threatened with dire consequences if she disclose(s) to her parents. It is averred that on Ol.r)2.2023, both complainant and her husband went to Sweden and in Sweden her husband forcibly dlagged her Mangalasutra, lleat her with hands and sent back to India. That after coming to India again demanded for additional dowry. Hence the complainl

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners/ accused Nos.4 and 5 that marriage took place on 09-12.2022 and accused Nos.4 and 5 being family members, attended the nrarriage. It is further submitted that on 01.02.2023, respondent No.2 along with accused No. I (husband) left to Srveden and ar:cused Nos.4 and 5 teft to USA on 16.02.2023. It is also submittecl that neither the complaint nor charge sheet, discloses any cvert acts of physical and mental harassment. It is pointed out :hat accused Nos.4 and 5 were residing in Missouri, a state in USA

6. It is submitted that narnes of petitioners have been added rvith an intent to implicate falsely, with baseless allel3ations, only 3 JAK, J cwP 15217 2024 to harass them. It is fairly submitted by learned counsel that accused Nos.4 ald 5 ha're attended the marriage and were present in Warangal and left to USA on 16.02.2023, that the allegation of harassing physically and mentally does not arise as they were in USA and that harassment as stated in complaint, if at all, was at Sweden. It is submitted that a ba,ld allegation that petitioners/ accused Nos.4 and 5 threatened her on whatsapp call do not satis$r the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC. That it is reflected in the charge sheet that accused Nos.4 and 5 are residing abroad. It is pointed out that when there is an allegation that there was a dispute/quarrel between rvife and husbald in Swederr and that complainant returned in the month of May to India during which accused Nos.4 and 5 were in USA is evidence enough to negate/negative the charges levelled. The fact that complaint lodged is in the month of July, 2023 establishes that it is a false and baseless complaint, that there is no truth in the allegations made.

7. l,earned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Mohan hsuami and. another o, State of tJttaranchal and anothert, (fmesh Kurnar IPS u. State of ' 1zooz; rz scc I I 4 JAK, J CRLP t5217 2024 Andhra Pradesh2, G.Linga Reddg a. M.Dhanna Raju and anotheF, Bqirqm Muralid,har v. State of Telanganaa, Manilal Keshri and others u. State oJ Bthar and anothets, Dablu KuJur v. State of Jharkhanda, Rajesh Gu7:ta u. State of Andhra Prad.esh and anotherz and Sh<ikson Belthissor v State oJ Keralq and. anothers, and contended :hat the Apex Court has time and again held that in cases of 498-A IPC, the courts have to be cautious in their approach when olose relatives are named in the complaint.

8. Learned counsel appearing for State submitted that there are severe allegations against accused Nos.l to 5 and accused Nos.4 and 5 played key roles in the harassment meted out to respondent No.2 arrd that charge sheet is filed and no interference is necessitated and that proceedings be not stayed.

9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record arld considered the rival submissions ? zotzlzl tvo lcrt ) 3l4(AP) r zor rlty aLolcrt;alz 1er; o zoz4(3) ALD(crt.) 350 (TS) ' zoo6 czu.L.J.:gs t u (zoza) 6 scc zst 'zor t1r; eLolcrt.) 885 (AP) '(zoo9) ta scc 466 5 JAK, J CRLP 15217 2024

10. Marriage of accused No.l and respondent No.2 was on

09.12.2022, accused Nos.4 and 5 attended the marriage and left for USA on 16.02.2023, even before accused Nos.4 and 5 left to USA, husband and wife left to Sweden. In the complaint, it is alleged that there was quarrel, between accused No.1 and respondent No.2, that accused No.l snatched the Mangalsutra and abused her in Sweden. There are no specific allegations against accused Nos.4 and 5. An allegation is made against accused No.l that a plot should be registered in the name of her father-in-law, in lieu of demand for additional dowry. It is not disputed and is on record that both left to Sweden and in the Month of May respondent No.2 returned to India. It is alleged that respondent No.2 was harassed even after she came back to India. There is no specific allegation of harassment being meted out to her try accused Nos.4 and 5 except a bald statement that they have threatened her on whatsapp call. This cannot form the basis for the charges levelled against them.

11. The ingredients of offences are to be reflected in the complaint. On a perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet, it is observed that no such ingredients are made out. Even in the complaint, it is only stated that she spoke to them, no date is I 6 JAK, J CRLP 15217 2024 given, no details are forthcoming, in the absence of such details, this Court cannot conclude that the allegations a -e true, unless they reflect in the complaint.

12. The Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Naragarta v. State of Telanganae dealing with Section 498-4 IpC and Scctions 3 and 4 of DP Act, held as follows: "25.A mere reference to the names of family nrembers in a crimina.l case errising out of a matrimonial ,1ispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nippcd in the bud. lt is a well- recognised fact, borne out ofjudicial experience, th et there is oftcn a tendency to implicate all the member-. of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and srveeping accusaLions unsupported by concrete evidence ol particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise cau Lion in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions rurd the legal process and avoid unnecessa5r harassment of innocent ftrmily members.

28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IpC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelt5r inflictt:d on a woman by her husband and his family, ensurin g swift intervention by the State. However, in recent yeius, as there havc been a notable rise in matrimonial dtsputes across tJle country, accompanied by growing disco:d and tension within the institution of mar.riage, consegr_rently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse pro,risions like Section 4984 of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his famity by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations ,luring matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of lcgal processes and a;r encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her 1amily. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 4!)8A of the IPC against the husband and his family in orCer to seek compliance with ttre unreasonable demards of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cau,ioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them." '2025 cRLL.J.+oz l JAK, J CRLP ts2t7 2024

13. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the vague a-llegations o, family members i,e., accused Nos.4 and 5 rvithout specific allegations indicating their active involvement cannot form basis for- criminal proceedings. They were residing in a different country. They cannot be dragged into crimina_l prosecution as the same would amount to an abuse of process of law, in the absence of specihc ailegations against each of them of their active involvement.

74. For aforesaid reasons, continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.1033 of 2024 on the file of principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First class at Hanamkonda, against accused Nos.4 and 5, petitioners herein would be arr abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.

15. This Criminal petition stands allowed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stald closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- V. KAVITHA PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rincipal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanamakonda. 2- The Station House Officer, Warngal police Station, Warangal District. 3. One CC to SRt. BANDA PRASADA RAO Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CC to Assistant Public. prosecutor, State of Telanga na, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. Two CD Copies PSI-/gh HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 ORDER CRLP.No.15217 ot 2024 I I (J a. ) o\{ r r1E S14 14- k 2 7 lur.r 2gz5 \:g cl t i:O ., \,\ tr1 1ri ,/ CRIMINAL PETITION STANDS ALLOWED