Prosecutor High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Shireen Unnissa Begum, Wo. Mohammed lbrahim Aged 26 years Occupation- Housewife Rl/o. H. No. 10-4-13116112, Nehru Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS 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 as against the Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3. in CC 10659 of 2020, dated 30/05/2019, on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Hyderabad Telangana. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 all further proceedings including the framing of charges and personal appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 in CC 10659 of 2020. dated 30-05-2019, on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magiskate, Hyderabad, Telangana, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petit c I coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\rl,:morandum of Grounds of cr minr:r petition and upon hearing the argumenrs of sri B Krishna Kumar, Advocate: for the petitioner and Mr. Surepa i F,r.tshanth, learned Assistant Public F rosecutor on beharf of the Respondent Nc..r and None Appeared for tl e Flospondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i l I I I THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI{ANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.15 4o,4 0F 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS] by petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 to quash the proceedings against them in CC.No. 10659 of 2O2O on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at |lampally, Hyderabad' The offences alleged against petitioners are under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Iudian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 4 ald 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 196 1'

2. Heald Ms. B.Chitralekha, learned counsel for petitioners and lVL'. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the material on record

3. On a cornplaint hlerl by respondent No'2 / de'factc complainant, FIR bearing No.287 of 2019 was registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Accused No.1 was married to respondent No.2 and blessed with a daughter' At the time of marriage' certain amount of cash, gotd, silver, and other household articles were given. That accused Nos.1 to 4 started harassing respondent No'2 uEiiilri \R;6''l: !1 2 JA(, J CRLP 15404_2024 for additiona dtwry, torturing, scolding, physically rmrl mentally harassing, i nsr-r lting and not taking care of hr r (proper maintenancej . it is alleged that despite complair-rr s to elders, accused Nos. i .o 4 did not mend their wayd. It is aJ leged that accused No. i rrr,rt:d filthy language, beat her ald ev,:rr tr:ied to kill her. That for thjs reason, respondent No.2 sought di,zorce and started staying ert her parents, house. Hence, the corniriz int"

4. Charge shr::t was filed on the file of XIII Add ti<,nal Chief Metropolitan l\{:Ulistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for offences under Sectir:ns l,)B-A and 406 of the IpC and Sections 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibiticn Act, 1961.

5. Learned c,lunsel for petitioners/accused Nos.ll and 3 submitted thz t retitionerslaccused Nos.2 and 3 resir{ed for a period of threc rritnths with accused No.1 and respo tdent No.2, (marriage war; r)r-r 29.O9.2016). It is further subrni.ted that therea-fter peti :ior-r ers/ accused never stayed and thett tl Le couple was residing sep> rately. It is a_lso submitted that ailegations levelled are ornn il>us in nature a,d no specific aile,larjons are attributed to tl er,. It is lastly submitted that it is onlr, *,i !h a view to harass and implicate the petitioners/accused, a falst: c,:mplaint is lodged. ( J JA( J CRLP_r 5404_2024

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are allegations of dowry harassment and that petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 instigated accused No' 1 for demanding additional do-wry after the marriage' Hence' no interference is necessitated and the proceedings be allowed to go on. 7 Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

8. Accused No.1 was married to respondent No'2 on 29.09.2016. An allegation is rrade that accused No'1 along with accusedNos.2to4harassedrespondentNo.2mentallyand physically for additionat dowry and that they ill-treated her' g. In the complaint, respondent No'2 stated as follows "afier that he took a rent house and ute are liuing peacefullg, afier feut d.ags, te repeated. same things' Mg husband doing sadism uith md. On perusal of the record, it is observed that petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 were staying separately from accused No' 1 and respondent No.2. It is not averred in the complaint that accused Nos.2 and 3 were visiting frequently' There is no allegation of harassment by petitioners / accused Nos'2 and 3' 4 JAIq J CRLP 15404 2024 Once it is stale,i by the complainant that she and rer. husband were residin6; sreparately, allegations of harassmeltl e ppear not r) bonaf.de in n rtr:r e and cannot be sustained.

10. Except I nt3re reference to petitioners/accuse C Nos.2 and 3 alleging hara:,srn:nt, no specific atlegations indicatir-r11 their active involvement s nrade. Generalized accusations uns rp ported by evidence cannct be the basis for criminal prosrcution. For sustaining thr: c llences under Sections 498-A and 40rr <,f IpC, the ingredients h tvr: to be made out from the compJa inr and the record. If inp rerlients are not made out, offences do not get attracted.

11. Section .l9r:i A of IPC reads as follows: "498.4,. Husband or relative of husband of a woman srrbjecting her to cruelty.- Whte',,er, being the husband or the relative ol the husband of a womal, subjects such womal to cnLelty shall br: lturished with imprisonment for a term which may exter d o three years and shall also be liable to fin:. Extr lat rrLtion.- For the purpose of this secr ir n, 'cruelty" lneirrls- (a) rurl ,l'illful conduct which is of such a nature as is likelv Lc dl i'e the womal to commit suicide or to cause grave inju ry' or danger to life, limb or health (whe tL er mental or ph.rsical) of the woman; or (b) h:u assment of the rvoman where su,;h harassment rs with a view to coercing her or any person related to hel to meet any unlaw{ul demand for any property' cr valuable security or is on account of failure by her or in) I)erson related to her to meet such demanf . 5 JAIq J CRLP 1540.1 2024

12. Section 406 of IPC leads as follorvs: "406. Funishment for crimiiral breach of trust.- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished tith imprisonment of either desc5iption for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

13. On a perusal of the compiaint and the record, it is observed that there are no speciflc allegations indicating the active involvement of petitioners / accLrsed Nos'2 and 3' It is also apparent that the married couple was staying in a rented place and there is no allegation that petitioners/accused Nos'2 and 3 v/ere visiting the couple frequently. As extracted at paiagraph No.9 supra, it is stated in the complaint that respondent No'2 and accused No.l rvere staying separately and accused No' 1 was harassing her and it is further stated that accnsed No' 1 was doing sadism to respondent No.2. tn the light of such allegations which do not specify the involvement of the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3, generalized and sweeping accusations cannot form the basis for prosecution. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmt Naragana u. State o;f Telanganar, held as follows: "27. A mere reference to the names of family members rn a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute' without specific allegations indicating their active inrolvem".,i should be nipped in the bud' It is a well- recognised fact, bome out of judicial experience, tJrat ' (202s) 3 scc 735 _t ^ 6 J^K J CRLP 15404 2024 there rs cftr:n a tendency to implicate a_11 the member s of the husbar C's family when domestic disputes arise ,trrt of a matrirno:rial discord. Such generalised and sweeuin g accusati rnl unsupported by concrete eviclencc c r particukris:1 allegations calnot form the basis fcr criminal p; osecution. Courts must exercise cauti,;r i r such cares tl prevent misuse of 1ega1 provisigns and th: legal pr tr:r s s ald avoid unnecessarJr harassmenl ( f innocent f a:n ily members." The Ape r rllcurt further held as follows: "30. The irrclusion of Section 498-AIPC by way of rlr amendm:nl ,vas intended to curb cruelty inflicted or rr woman lr1- rer husband and his family, ensuring s ,vil I interventiorL by the State. However, in recent veaJs, a j there ha rr, :een a notable rise in matrimonial dispt ter; across tte ( ountry, accompalied by growing discorc. tLnrI tension r.,itl in the institution of marriage, consequen tly there har; ber:n a growing tendency to misuse provir;i,rnr, like Sect on .198-AIPC as a tool for unlcashing per:iona vendett,a agiunst the husband and his family by a u ife Making I'atj-re and generalised allegations durrnl matrimor ial ,ronflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to ,ht misuse o ' le gal processes and an encouragement for r rsr 9f arm tn'isting tactics by a wife ald/or her fa;n i1y Sometimt s, -ocourse is taken to invoke Section 49g-,{lpC against tre lrusbald and his family in order Lo sr:ek complian,;e u'ith the unreasonable demands of a u, j-e. Conseque ntl y this Court has, time ald again, cautior ed against prosecuting the husbald and his family in -he absence c I a c lear prima facie case against them.,' 14 . On a pe rus a1 of the entire record, it is appare nt that the allegations aro generalized in nature and no specific a llegations are attributed srowing the involvernent of petitionr'rs /accused Nos.2 arrd 3. a.llegations are not specific, no Cetails are forthcoming as t,:r the specilic dates of harassment, de ta.ls of any injuries or an / i:rl)use. Alregations are directed agair st accused No.l and not a5lainst petitioners/ accused Nos.2 alri li. In the : i I .T JAK J CRLP 15404 2024 present facts and circumstances of the qase' the ingredients of the offences aie not made out'

15. On consideration of the entire factual 'matrix of the case' this Court d.eems it appropriate that proceedings in CC'No'10659 of 2O2O on the frle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, against petitioners/ accused Nos'2 and 3 are liable to be quashed al1d are accordingiy quasheci' It is made clear that the observations made in this order shail not in any v;ay influence the trial Court during the proceedings qua other accused.

16. For the aforesaid reasons' ti-re Criminal Petition is allowed' Miscellaneousapplicationspending,ifany,shallstand closed. Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// se.,{f$orrcea to'',. District. ,n" Xlll Addtional chief Metropolitan Yasr:IaI' at Nampally' Hyderabad' 2. The Station nor"" oii""i'iiiiliC"'"oo Police Station' Hvderabad citv 3. d; a-c to Sri. B Krishna Kumar' Advocate-[oPUC] 4. rwo ccs to tne puoric Fr;;;;i;;' i16;'clurt foi ftre state of relansana at 5. Two CD CoPies HYderabad. [OUT] Su.t/kam I i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: '2,tC1312025 ORDER CRLP.No 15404 of 2024 ,'. i! I 1-:-') ...,. l'\ f T r-: .9 s\ (3 t' a: i] irQ t ,:i_ .,:)ir1 CRIMINAI. PETITION IS ALLOWED