The High Court · 2025

2. Ciilaka-nti Tejasri, Wo. S1a.v-an, Age 2.1 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. 2g_ 891lctst1 , Housing board, rvriryara"guda town, Nitsonda D[iibi,'i"r-rig"nr. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 4g2 or cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminir Fetition, the High corrt may -court ]o gyash the proceedings in cc No.76612022 on the fir6 or ttre be.pleased of the Judicial Magistrate of First class at Miryalaguda, against the petitioner. l.A. NO:1OF 2022 Petition under section 492 of cr-p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminir Fetition, the High e;;;;ay be pleased to stay all further proceedings in cc No. 76612022 on ihe file of the court of the Judiciar lvragistrate of tirst crass at Miryaraguda, incruding dispensation of personal appearance of the petitioner. l.A. NO:1 oF 2023 Petition under section 492 of cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminir Fetition, the High C;;,1 ;ay be pteased to extend the lnterim order dated 27122022 in LA. No. 1 ot 2022 in Crl.P. 1 1713 of 2022. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Khala Vizarath AIi, Advocate for the Petitioner and smt. s.Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the state/Respondent No.1 and of Ms. Majji Triveni, Advocate representing Sri M.V.Hanumanth Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No 2- The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINA LP ETITION No.11713 of 2022 ORDE R: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner_accused No.4 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against her in C.C.No.766 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Miryalaguda. .The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498_4 of the lndian penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3, 4 ot the Dowry prohibition Act (for short 'the Act')

02. Heard Sri Kha)a Vizaralh Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.4 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Ms. IVajji Triveni, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 14.05.2021 and they lived happily for some time. Subsequently, the accused No.1 allegedly subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty and harassment in connection with unlawful demands for dowry. The other accused including the petitioner herein had instigated the accused No. l to harass the respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said harassment, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and has never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. lt is submitted that the petitioner- accused No.4, who is the sister of the accused No.l has not interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.4 used to reside at Nizamabad District for the purpose of her studies and thereafter, she left to Australia along with her husband. The petitioner-accused No.4 has neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents at any point of time. lt is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioner-accused No.4 in the complaint or the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Section 498-4 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

05. With the above submissions, while praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused No.4, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Geddam Jhansi and another v- The Sfate of Telangana and othersl wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.3'l , 32,33,34,35, 36 and 38 held that: "!!. lnvoking criminal process ls a sezous matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the penal code or any other penht statute are alleged or aftributed to the accused and a prima facie case rs made out. lt applies with equal force when criminat laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalisinq domestic dispqfes without specific attegations an} credible materials to, support the same may have drsastrous consequences for the institution of famity, which is built m the premise of love, affectiont, cordiality and mutual trust. tnstitution of famity constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between famity members, are guided by deepty ingrained sociat values and culturat expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher tevet of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upoi. Thus, when famity retationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the famity bond, couris shoutd be circumspect and judicious, and shoutd attow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.

32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial dispufes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints fited a eging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to ' 2ozs tr'tsc too implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts aftributed to them. Fufther, when tempers run high and retationships turn bifter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality-

33. /t goes without sayin.g that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity- Domestic violence typicaily happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large, except perhapd by the immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forThcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. ln fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent stafures like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since, violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close retatives is now criminalised entailing serlous consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful white deating with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount impoftance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, atl the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.

34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the basls of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner to hurt altegations of domestic violence and harassment againsi the other paftner, would norma y not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a serie,s of acts which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a serles of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in Specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminat proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general attegation of harassment without pointing out the spJcrfcs against such perpetrators would not surflce, as ls the case in respect of the plesent appeltants. 3!. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domebtic violence, the comptaints and charges shoutd be specific, as far as possrb/e, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminatety dragging all the members of the famity. There may bL situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a btind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts toihe,m and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had activety cottaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law. 36. Our observations, however, shoutd not be generalised to mean that retatives cannot be brought under the purview of the aforesaid penat provisions when they have actively participated in inflicting cruelty on the daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such allegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such members of the famity or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a matrimoniat discord and allegations made by an emotionally disturbed person' Each and every case of domestic violence will thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case.

38. We have also noted that the appellants do not live with the principat accused.. While the marriage took ptace in Pondicherry and the complainant lived with her husband and mother-inJaw in Chennai, the appellants are residents of Hyderabad' As the appettants do not stay together with the complainant and her husband and. mother-in'law, to make the appeltants as co-aicused for alleged offences committed in the matrimonial house of the complainant on the basis of very generalised allegations does not appear to be tenable."

06. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

07. A perusal of the entire record reveals that after the marriage in the year 2021 ,lhe respondent No.2 and the accused No.1 lived happily for some time. lt is evident from the face of the record that the majority of the allegations are directed against the accused No.1, the husband of respondent No.2. The present petitioner, who is arrayed as the accused No.4 is the sister_in_law of the respondent No.2 and she is never resided along with the respondent No.2 and accused No.1. lt is an undisputed fact that the petitioner-accused No.4 studied at Nizamabad and later on left to Australia.

08. lt is pertinent to note that there is no reference to any mobile number or specific mode of communication evidencing any act of harassment by the petitioner_accused No.4 towards respondent No.2. Though .it is alleged that the accused persons harassed respondent No.2 in connection with a demand for additional dowry, there is no mention in the complaint or the charge sheet regarding the quantum of dowry ailegedly demanded. Significantly, there are no specific, direct, or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet describing the manner in which the petitioner-accused No.4 is said to have subjected respondent No.2 to physical or mental harassment. All the substantial allegations appear to be directed solely against accused No.1. The charge sheet lacks any detailed particulars or instances of alleged harassment attributable to the petitioner_ accused No.4.

09. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it apposite to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and anothel wherein at Paragraph Nos.18, 24,25,28,29,31 & 32 itwas held that: "18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

24. Insofar as appellaht Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR woutd indicate that no substantial and specific atlegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. /f is a/so an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminat case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well' recognised fact, borne out of iudicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete ' AIR zo25 suPRetlE couRT 173 evidence or paiicularised altegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and uniia unnecessary harassment of innocent famity members. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appeltant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in lhe matrimonial house of appeltant No.l 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 taw in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

28. The inclusion of Section 4984 of the tpC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruetiy inflicted on a woman by her husband and his famity, ensuring swift interveniion by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notabte rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequen y, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions tike Section 4984 of the lpC as a tool for unleashing personal vendefta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised a egations during matrimoniat conflicts, if not scrutinized, wi lead to the misuse of tegal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her famity. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 4984 of the tpc against the husband and his famity in order to seek iomptiance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband ancl his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruefty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 49gA of the tpC shoutd remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminat proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant- husband of the second respondent herein' a complaint under Section 49BA of the IPC is lodged by the tatter. tn fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruetty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any propefty or valuable security in the form of dowry' However' sometimes lf ls mlsused as in the present case'

31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs' State of iarkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic reatties into considbration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassment by the husband's clo6e relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the comptainant resided would have an entkety 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 ipugned 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 famity members i.e., appetlant Nos 2 to 6 herein' Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhaian Lal' Therefore, the High Court, in the present case' erred in nQt exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Courl's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants "

10. ln the present case on hand, as observed supra' the petitioner-accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of respondent No'2 lt is an undisputed fact that she pursued her studies in Nizamabad and subsequently moved to Australia along with her husband. Therefore, she was not residing with respondent No.2 and accused No.1 at their matrimonial home and was not physically present to be involved in the day{o_day affairs of their matrimonial life. A perusal of the charge sheet further reveals that the investigation has not resulted in any conclusive flndings regarding the mode, or means of communication, allegedly used by the petitioner-accused No.4 to harass respondent No.2 in connection with any alleged demand for additional dowry. Furthermore, the charge sheet does not disclose the specific amount of dowry allegedly demanded. The absence of these essential particulars renders the allegations vague and unsubstantiated, failing to disclose the necessary ingredients to attract the offences alleged against the petitioner_accused No.4.

11. ln criminal cases relating to domestic violence, it is imperative that the complaints and charge sheets contain specific and concrete allegations, as far as possible, against each individual family member who is sought to be prosecuted. lndiscriminate and omnibus allegations against all family members, without detailing their specific roles or involvement, may amount to a misuse of the criminal justice process, I I particularly in view of the stringent provisions invoked in such cases.Theremayindeedbeinstanceswherecertainrelativesor family members, though aware of the alleged harassment or violence, fail to intervene or offer support to the victim However' mere inaction or silence, in the absence of overt acts of instigation, abetment, or participation, does not automatically render such persons culpable under the law. Unless the circumstances clearly establish their involvement in or encouragement of the acts of domestic violence' implicating them in the criminal proceedings without prima facie evidence of their complicity amounts to an'abuse of the process of law'

12. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 amounts to sheer abuse of process of law, therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 are liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No'4 in C.C.No.766 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Miryalaguda, are hereby quashed' As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN AsslsrANT REGI.TRAR Note: This orders is amended as per court ordcr Dated 0l-08-2025 passes in IA No.l of2025 The name of the petitioner is mentioned in the Order Dared 03-01_2025 in Crlp No. I The name of the petitioner,.Chilakanti,, Mounrka Is corrected as ..Chalikanti,, Whereever it is necessary. This order substituted the earlier order Which was dispatched on 30_07_2025 Issue amend order accordingly Mounika. .1713 of 2022. i //TRUE COPY// SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ISTANT REGISTRAR A SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4. 5.

6. 7. trrL LrOi.iat.tvtrgistrate of First Ctass, M I he€tation House Officer, Miryatgudi i 9n" 99 to Sri.Khaja Vizarath Ati, Advocate IOpUCt pl9 99 to Sri M.v.Hanumantr Hao-,'Aii,tick"" ioEucf ff.%:r"ri:tffi.fljblic 1'l L.R. Copies. iryalguda, Nalgonda District . Iown Police Station, Nalgonda Prosecutor, Hisn court i6i r-r,"t"tit" or reransana, I[:,r::t?_.8ffitary, Union of tndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company

8. Thb Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad i S. Tv\ro CD Cooies PSK /ABK I Wi .rl ,,t.'], "it-i.t,+i HIGH COURT DATED:O 3 t0712025 0110812025 AMENDED ORDER CRLP.No.11713 o12022 \ oR lHt S T/l a) 1 i Al]u 2025 z * 5sa,r-i),. 1 B ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION