High Court · 2025

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 quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No.4 to B in CC No.3056/20'19 on the file of the Hon'ble XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. ...RESPONDENTS

1.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\/emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, ttre High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings, including the :ppeirance of the petitionersi Accused No. 4 to 8 in cc. No. 3056/2019 on the fi e of he Honble XV Addl. chief Metropoltan lagistrate, Hyderabad pending disp rsal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tho Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argum -.nts of sri Mohd Muzatfer Ullah Khan ,Advocate for the petitioner and Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 none appeared for the Respr)ndent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER 7/ / I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1'1831 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos 4 to 8 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C No.3056 ot 2022 on the file of XV Additional Chief lVletropolitan [Vlagistrate, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498-A, 406, 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for sho( 'lPC') and section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the Act')

02. Heard IVI/s lVlohd. lvluzaferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8 and Smt,S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. lnspite of substitute service vide paper publication which is filed on record, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the lecord. 03 ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No.'1 with the respondent No.2 was solemnized in August, 2017. After marriage she led happy life for a couple of days and later her in laws started passing 2 remarks over the jahez articles and abused lrer in filthy language. ln the month of November, 2017 hl-,r husband went to Dubai by leaving her at the mercy of he tn laws, his absence her in laws used to harass her phr,,sically and mentally and forcibly took away all gold ornamr:nts and ill treated her. Later in January, 2018 she joined hr-.r husband at Dubai, but he did not take care of her and ill rreated and harassed her physically and mentally On 1r302201g on the instigation of her in laws her husband took her birck to lhdia and he again left to Dubai on i6.02.2018 leaving -espondent No.2 in lndia and her in laws treated her as a m;aid servant and did not provide minimum necessities. She informed the said ill treatment to her husband when her huslrand came back from Dubai after 8 days, but he did not take care. The petitioners are trying to perform second marriage for want of additional dowry and on 24.02.20i8 they demanded 2 lakhs of additional dowry and when her parents expre,ssed their disability she was driven out of the matrimonial home and also threatened her with dire consequences On (tg.07.201g the petitioners went to her parents house and picked up quarrel with her an* insisted to take divorce l-1ence, the ( ^t 3 respondent No 2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-4, 406, 506 of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Act

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2. Being the sisters, brothers and brother in law of the accused No.'1 they were implicated in the present case on the allegation of demand of additional dowry and that the petitioners are residing at different places having different abode than that of the accused No.1 and they are leading their respective lives separately. The petitioners submit that there are no specific allegations against them and the police at the time of filing charge sheet has not taken into consideration that there is no prima facie evidence against them and filed the charge sheet. lt is submitted that even if the entire version of the prosecution is assumed to be true, then also, there is no specific role or specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the alleged offences. The petitioner-accused No.4 is the sister, the petitioner-accused No.5 is another sister, the petitioner-accused No,6 is brother, the petitioner-accused No 7 is 4 another brother of accused No.'1 and petitioner-accused No.B is the husband of accused No.5 and they are residing; separately from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No 2. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No.1 . Thc petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 :r from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners- accused Nos.4 to B. The contents of the complain. or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract.the offences under Sections 498-4 of IPC and sections 4 rnd 6 of the Act.

05. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8, learnt>d counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision ir Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. V. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.7, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia held that:

9. There is no denial of the fact that the appellants reside at Hyderabad whereas the de.facto complainant stayed at Guntur in her marital hxse. There is no specific date as to when the present 12025 O Supreme (SC) 707 r a' .) 5 appellants visited Guntur and joined accused nos. 1 to 3 in demanding dowry from de-facto complainant. Considering the growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives of the husband, this Court in the matter of Geeta A/lehrotra & Anr. vs. Sfafe of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2012) 70 SCC 741 has deprecated the practice involving the relatives of the husband for the offence under Section 49BA IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The following has been held in para 18: "18 Their Lordships of the Supreme Couft in Ramesh case [(2005)3 SCC 507: 2005 SCC (Cri) 7351 had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as posslble lt was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-4, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sisfer of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Couft were pleased to hold that the High Courl ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed." 6

10. ln a recent judgment in the matter <tf Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. ys. Sfafe of Telanqana & Anr., (2024) /NSC 953. (2024) 12 SCR sss, tnis Court has again reiterated and deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husoand in dowry related matters. The fottowing has bet>n held in paras 24, 25, 28, 30, 31 & 32. '24. lnsofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have l.teen dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FtR woutd indicate that no substantiat ancl spr,cific allegations have been made against appettant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they use d to instigate appeilant No.1 for demanding rnore dowry. /f is a/so an admitted fact that they n=ver resided with the couple namely appeltant l,lo 1 and respondent No.2 and their children Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided togethe,. at Guntakal, Andhra pradesh. Appeltant l/os. 7 lo 6 live in Neltore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively. 25. A. mere reference to the names of fa,nily members in a criminal case arising out t,f a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well_recognised f,act, borne out of judiciat experience, that thero is often a tendency to impticate all the member:; of the husband's famity when domesf-lc drspr,,fes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Srich generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis - 7 for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases fo prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the presenl case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 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 and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 28. The inclusion of Section 498A 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 matrimonid dispufes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency fo mrsuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Atlaking vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will tead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Secfion 4984 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court 8 has, time and again, cautioned ag tinst prosecuting the husband and his famity ir the absence of a clear prima facie case agrllnst them. 30 ln the above context, this Court in G.V. Fao vs L.H.V. Prasad (2000) SCC 693 observed as fc,ilows. "12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial drbpufes in recent times. Marriage is a so)t€d ceremony, the main purpose of which i;; to enable the young couple to setile down ir, life and live peacefully But litile matrimctnial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assitme serious proporlions resulting in commissio,-t of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those rrho could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case, There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the pafties tnay ponder over their defaults and .terminate t,1eir dr'spufes amicably by mutual agreement inst,:ad of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that proc3ss the parties lose their "young" days in cha:,ing their "cases" in different courts.,, 31 . Further, this Court in preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) T SCC 667 hetd that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautit>us in dealing with these complaints and must titke pragmatic realties into consideration wnile dealing' with matrimonral cases The ailegations a 9 of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No 82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Coutl, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Secfion 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the cridnd prosecution against the appellants."

11. ln the present case a/so, it is an admitted position that the appellants are residing at Hyderabad whereas the de-facto complainant stayed in her marital house at Guntur at the relevant point of time. She is presently staying in USA, There is omnibus allegation against the appellants that they too used to demand dowry or instigate accused nos. I to 3 who are not before us, in demanding

12. Considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the view, having relied on this Court's previous decrslons in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) & Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), the present criminal 10 case against the appellants deserues to be quashed. Accordingty, the appeat is allowe,d and of 2016 again:;t the Criminal Case No. 359 appellants is quashed.

06. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations rrgainst the petitioners and the truth or othenrise would cor,re out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court an,rj prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition.

07. Learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State also prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition.

08. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint discloses that the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to g were living separately from the accused No 1 and respondent No.2 and they being sisters, brothers and brother in law of accused No.1 are no way connected to the alleged offences. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners_accused \os.4 to g were residing separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No.2. { 1L

09. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to B. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution. '1 0. lVlaking vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 4984 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facle case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to B cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. I t 72

11. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the setfled principle of law laid ,Jown by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8 amounts to abuse of process of law, thr:refore, the proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nor;.4 to g are liable to be quashed

12. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is ;rllowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to g in C.C.No 3056 of 2022 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan lVagistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby q tashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// I SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD REGISTRAR DE t I , , Ceclou oFFtcER \ To, \ H yderabad.. '1 . The XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 2' The Station House officer, women porice"Station, charm nar, south Zone , 3. One CC to Sri. Mohd Muzaffer Ullah khan advocate tOpU jl 4. Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad (r)UT) 5. Two CD Copies RAS/gh HIGH COURT DATED:3 010412025 ORDER CRLP.No.11831 ot 2022 1t.i r s r,1 16: o ( o { 11 ,tjN 2025 * .-.- *./" -'/-//' .- -i .-:'." ':::-. .,..:.:,:-:- CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED ll 6 W