The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of w

1. The State of Telangana, rep by The Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Chunchupalli, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothaguem Dsitrict.

3. Smt.Thogaru Deepthi @ Velisetty Deepthi, Wo. T.Rambabu D/o.V.Venkateswarlu, Occ Private Emploee, Aged about 35 years, R/o.H. No .4l3l 1281 A, Ramnagar, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothaguem District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 QUASH the proceedings against the Petitioners herein in the C.C No.139 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble ll Addl Judicial First class Magistrate At Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 OF BNSS praying thal in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings against the Pe-itioners in C.C No.139 of 2O24 on the frle of the Hon'ble ll Addl Judicial Firs;t :lass Magistrate At Kothagudem, Bhad radri-Kothagudem District in the interest of lustice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusin,l the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A RAJENDRA PRASAD, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRI SYED YA{iAR MAMOON, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent Nos r ,& 2 and of Sri p CHAITANYA, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. The Court made the following: ORDER o THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAI PETITION NO.I5742 OF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the pe titioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.139 of 2024 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial First C1ass Magistrate, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District registercd for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short'D.P.Act').

2. The facts of the case are that the defacto complainanl respondent No.3 lodged a complaint stating that her marriage with petitioner No.1-A. 1 was performed on 15.11.2013 which is an arranged marriage. After the marriage they lived happily for some time and they were blessed with one son, thereafter disputes arose between the parties and started living separately from September 2023. lt is also alieged that petitioner No.1 had taken the salary of the complainant a-nd he also demande d additional dowry from her parents. Petitioner No.1 also i I I l i i i ,,l 2 harassed thc complainant physically and her sis er_in_law also harassed her everyda5,. Further, the in-laws and r;isrer rn_law of complainant instigated A.1 to harass the co nplainant for additional dowry. As such, rcquested the ; olice to take necessary action. Basing on the said complainL, the police registered the case against the accused for the sairl offences.

3. Heard Sri A.Rajendra prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, learncd Aclditional Public Prosccutor appcaring for the respondenr Stirte and Sri P.Chaitanya, Iearnecl counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

4. The contention of learrned counsel for petitioners is that after the marriage A. I and respondent No...t resrded at Hyderabad, pctitioner Nos.2 and 3 resided at luryapet and petitioner No.4 is working as a lecturer and resid ng at Sircilla. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 never resided with A.1 ancl respondent No.3. There are no specific allegations against pctit oner Nos.2 to 4 and even against A.1 also. Only after hling d.vorce petition by A- 1, respondent No.3 filed this complain t with false allegations under Section 49g-A of IpC and under Se,:tion 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. As there are no specific allegations against the . ::;,4 E..-E'' 3 petitioners, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, Iearned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that there are allegations not only against A.1 but also against A.2 to A.4. Due to the instigation of A.2 to A.4, A l had not shown interest in respondent No.3 and a panchayat was also conducted before elders but due to the intervention of A.2 to A.4, the matter was not settled. Now A. 1 transferred his property in the name of A.2 and A.3 which itself shows that A 2 to A.4 also have role in harassing respondent No.3. Hence, prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record, the allegations againsl all these accused are that petitioner/A. I at the instigation of A.2 to A.4 harassed respondent No.3 for additional dowry and also abused her at the instigation of A-2 to A.4 and due to unbearable harassment, she left the company of A. 1' As seen from the record, there are no specific aliegations against A.2 to A.4. There are disputes between A. 1 and respondent No.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta Vs State of w ) 4 Jharkandl, hekl that there must be specihc allellations against each of the accused and the family mernb,:rs of the accused/husband cannot be roped into tlre casc. The allegations made against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 art.v,:ry.v;rgue in nature and thcre are no specihc or distinct allegiLtic,ns. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs The State of Bihar2, there must be specific and distinct allegations against suc I person are necessary and general omnibus allegation is not:ruff-rce to make a person liable. In this case also there irrc no specihc allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 to cons titute offences alleged. The allegations are mainly against A. I As such, the proceedings agzrinst petitioner Nos.2 to 41A.2 t<t A .4 are liable to be quashed and the petition against petitioner No.l/A. 1 is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having regard to the above discussion, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the p:oc eedings in C.C.No. 139 of 2024 pending on rhe hle of II Adclitional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem I l2olo) 7 scc 667 ' (20221 6 scc s99 I , I I I 5 District against petitioner Nos. 2 to 41A.2 to A.4 and the Criminal Petition in sofar as petitioner No.1/A.1 is concerned, it is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/-M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFTCER To

1. The ll Addl Judicral First class Magistrate At Kothagudem' Bhadradri- Kothagudem District 2-TheStationHouseOfficer,PoliceStation,Chunchupalli,Kothagudem' Bhadradri-Kothaguem Dsitrict.

3. One CC to SRI A RAJENDRA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI P CHAITANYA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR' High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies GR|PSL Dw I I I I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1810812025 I I I ORDER CRLP.No.15742 ot 2024 rE S i:i /: ' ^\;. /' \.' 0 3 s[P 206 \ o .: !:. ,r/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,A q n