The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court muy be pleased lo stay of ail further proceedings in cc No. 1036 of 2o2q on the file of the Judicial First class Magistrate at Miryalguda for the offences U/sec.49B-A IPC 3, 4 DP Act pending disposat of the Criminit petition l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section s2g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 20.03.202d passed in crlp.no. l5606 of 2024 w;.r' ,/ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he IVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurrt:nts of Ms. Thanam Keerthi Chandana, learned counsel representing Sri RAPOLU BHASKAR, AdvOCate for the Petitioner and SUREPALLI PRASHANTH I\SSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri D. NAGENDER NAIK for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI{ANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.156O6 OF 2o24 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by petitioners/ accused Nos.6 and 7 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1O36 of 2024 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda. Offences levelled against petitioners are under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short'DP Act').

2. Heard Ms. Thanam Keerthi Chandana, learned counsel representing Sri Rapolu Bhasker, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l/State. Perused the material on record.

3. On the basis of a complaint of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, FIR bearing No.168 of 2024 came to be registered on O4.O7.2024 by the Miryalaguda II Town Police, 2 JAK, .J cRt-P 15506 2024 Nalgonda District, for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DI) Act.

4. The contents of the complaint are thal rrccused No. 1 and respondent No.2/complainant \ rer€. married on O1.06.2023. at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.15,O0,00O/-, 12 tulas gold, 12 tulas silver were given. That orL 08.08.2023, accused Nos. 1 to 3 beat respondent No.2. Thirt on the same day, respondent No.2 went to her parent's houst:. It is stated in the conrplaint that petitioners/ accused I'los.6 and 7 (maternal uncle and aunt) convinced responden: No.2 to lead a conjugal life with accused No.1 and taken res conclent No.2 to accused No.1's house. That on 23.1O.2023. accused Nos. 1 to 5 abused respondent No.2 for not bringing additional dowry, threatened her with dire consequenccs, vexed u,ith intolerable harassment, on 23 .lO .2023 she called police personal. Ttrat on 24.1O.2023 she was shifted :c her parent's house. That when elders called lor talks, then rrti the accused did not respond and harassed her, that, she is staving with her aged parents. A charge sheet is filed in ihe Court of Miryalaguda (dated 30.08 .2024). 3 JNK,J CRLP 15606 2024

5. Learned counsei for petitioners submitted that after bringing respondent No.2 to the house, accused No.1 started harassing physically and mentally for additional dowry along with other accused. (However, there dre no specihc allegations against petitioners/ accused Nos.6 and 7).

6. It is submitted that the charge sheet does not reflect the facts correctly and that investigation was not carried out in a proper manner, that there are no allegations even in the investigation as recorded in the charge sheet. Hence, the proceedings against petitioners/ accused Nos.6 and 7 in C.C.No.1O36 of 2024 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda for the offence under Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, be quashed 7 . On the other hand, learned Assistalt Public Prosecutor submitted that allegations with regard to accused Nos.6 and 7 were that they were part of the harassment team for bringing additional dowry. It is further submitted that the case is at summons stage and no interference is necessitated. 4 JAK, J 'tRLP l5r;06 2024

8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record Considered rival submissions.

9. Accused Nos.6 and 7 are maternal unc e and aunt of accused Nc,. I . On a perusal of the compla ir t, it can be inferred that accused Nos.6 and 7 har': convinced respondent No.2 to lead a peaceful life witlL rLccused No.l and have brought her to the house of her husband. That on

24.10.2023, she returned back to her parent'sr house due to torture of accused Nos.l to 7. There are no specific allegations of additional demand of dowry nor any allegation of physica-l and mental harassment by petiti,)ners/ accused Nos.6 and 7. The only statement made in the complaint is that accused Nos.6 and 7 have taken responclr:rt No.2 to the house of her husband after convincing her. Th s act is in fact a bonafide act with art intention to reunit:. no adverse inference can be drawn against the act of accus,:d Nos.6 and

7. Though, it is stated that on 24.1O.2023 af,.e r respondent No.2 returned to her parent's house due -o unbearable torture, physical and mental abuse, she left the house, w1./ 5 JAK, J CRLP 1i606 2024 nothing is reflected in the entire record about the active involvement of petitioners/ accused Nos.6 and 7.

10. On perusal of the charge sheet, the complaint/FlR and record it is evident that there are no specific allegations or averments against petitioners/ accused Nos.6 and 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with the issue of family members involved in matrimonial disputes in Dara Lo,kshmi Naragana and Others a The State of Telangana and. Anothert held that specific allegations have to be made out to attract Section 498A of IPC and the Courts have to be cautious when the family members are named in the complaint and further held that a mere reference to the narnes of family members in a criminal case arising out of matrimonial disputes, without specific a-llegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud I 1. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there should be specific details and the allegations should not be generalized. Particularized allegations have to be spelled out showing the active involvement of family | 2024 SCC Onlioe SC 3682 6 JAK. J cRr.P r5506 2024 members. In the absence of such specific details and particulaJized aJlegations, the family mern bers in the matrimonial disputes cannot be roped in under Section 49BA of IPC.

12. In the present facts of the case, no specilic allegations or accusations are made, nothing is forthco r ing from the record against petitioners/ accused. It appea-s that it is a clear case of misuse of legal provisions t o harass the innocent rt:latives, family members. It is s,atecl in the complaint that petitioners/ accused Nos.6 and 'z went to the house of respondent No.2 and made deceitful rvords to take her back to lead a family life with accusec No. 1 . If this statement was true, then petitioners/ accuserl Nos.6 and 7 would not have ventured to bring back respcndent No.2 to lead a martial life with accused No.1. I- is common knowledge that maternal uncles and aunts plz,r, a major role in family disputes. It appears that they only tri:rl to patch up the differences between respondent No.2 and accusecl No. 1. It is also alleged that accused No.l along with irccused Nos.2, to 7 callecl respondent No,2 on phone a rrl demanded w 7 JAK, J cRr.P 15606 2024 additional dowry. There is no specific allegation as who demanded the additional dowry at that particular point of time when phone caJI was made and it is a generalized allegation which cannot form basis for leveling charges or allegations against petitioners. There is further allegation that respondent No.2 was not allowed into the house. This contradicts the earlier statement that petitioners/ accused \ Nos.6 and 7 ]nad taken her into the house. Such contradictory statements only establish that the complaint is not based on true facts which transpired. Unless there are 1 t clear and specifrc allegations showing the active involvement of petitioners/ accused Nos.6 and 7, no offences or charges can be sustained against them in the eyes of the law.

13. For reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings against petitioners / accu sed Nos.6 and 7 in C.C.No.1O36 of 2024 on the fiIe of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda, are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice and continuatiog. of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law, the proceedings are hereby quashed. 8 ,f JAK, J cl{l.P 15506 2024

14. Accor<lingly, the Criminal Petition is allovzr:d Miscellaneous applications pending, if anr', shall stand closed To, SD/- A.H S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial F irst Class Magistrate at Miryalguda, Nalgc,nda Drstrict 2. The Station House Officer, Miryalaguda llTown Police litation Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District I

3. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRI D NAGENDER NAIK Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State o'Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies VM/gh I . a1',1,t J!- 2 5 8tT 166 !: .;: .ti .!' i' HIGH COURT DATED: 0110812025 ORDER CRLP.No.15606 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1 l)f- lol l0