CRLP/4195/2024 of B. Sujani Vs The State of Telangana on 4 November 2025

COMMON ORDER:

These Crrminal Petitions are filed under Sectio I the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quas;l against them in C.C.No.68 of 2024 on the file of the le:i I\rletropolitan I\.'lagistrate at L.B. Nagar, Ranga R: petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 were alleged k> offences punishable under Sections 498-4, 406 and 5l petitioners-accused Nos 4 and 5 were alleged kr offences punishable under Sections 498-4 and 506 of 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 482ofCrPC by the proceedings rned lll Additional idy District. The have committed i of lPC, while the have committed IPC and Sections

2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising oL:of C.C.No.6B of 2024.lhey are heard together and disposed of by this c tmmon order.

3. Heard Mr. P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel .,r r the petitioners, and Mr. [V.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional )ublic prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. There is no epresentation for respondent No.2-de faclo complainant. perused the re;ord

4. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are the rr other, father and sister of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.5 s the husband of the petitioner-accused No.4. As per the averments n the complaint,

' dowry was given to the accused at the time of marriage on their demand. After marriage, accused No.1 and de facto complainant lived together with petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 for one month. When accused No.l left for Bangalore in connection with his employment, the petitioners harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally, abused and humiliated her. ln May, 2022, when lhe de facto complainant visited the house of petitioner-accused No.4 at Bangalore, petitioners-accused , Nos.2 and 4 demanded additional dowry and insisted her to transfer her property in their names. Unable to bear such harassment, she went to her parental house, but the accused refused to take her back. During her stay in the matrimonial home, the accused never allowed her to talk to anyone and never allowed her brother to come to their house. They also threatened to kill her if she speaks with her parents and if she fails to bring additional dowry. On the instigation of the petitioners, accused No.1 used to beat her and demand additional dowry. Finally on 30.08.2023, when the de facto complainant went to her parents' house on the occasion of Rakhi festival, the accused refused to take her back.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between de facto complainant and accused No.1 . The ' petitioners never demanded the dowry or harassed the de facto

. complainant. Due to the harassment of de facfo conr No.1 lost his job. The petitioners never resided under accused No.1 and the de facto complainant. lt is allegr: that the petitioners demanded additional dowry, but no time was mentioned. The present complaint was lodge complainant on 13.12.2023, whereas, the marriir complainant with accused No.1 was performed on reason for such delay remained unexplained. lt is als except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are petitioners. Thus he prayed to quash the procee. petitioners. )lainant, accused the same roof of I in the complaint specific date and J by the de facto ';e of de facto 11.02.2022. The r contended that attributed to the ngs against the

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional F ublic prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petiticr ers herein, have harassed the de faclo complainant after her marriage v ith accused No.1 and berng unable to bear the same, the present cc,r tplaint has been lodged. lt is further contended that all the allegatior s levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject I atter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedir ;s at this stage. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

hereunder For the sake of convenience, Section 49g_A of lpC is extracted 498A. Husband or relative subjecting her to cruetty._ of husband of a woman

8. ln the judgment of Sfafe of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lat and othersl , the Hon,ble Supreme Court held as follows: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shait be punished with imprisonment for a term which may eitend to tniee ye,ars ana shall also be tiable to fine. Explanation._ For the purplse of tnis section, "cruelty" means-@)any witful conduct whjich is of such a nature as is likety to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to tfe, timb or heatth (whether mental or physical) oi the woman; orl!)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful deiand for any propefty or valuable security ot is on account of fatlure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. ,Th.e fgllowing categories of cases can be stated by way of rllustration wherein the extraordtnary po*u, ,niir-i,tiit"'ziza o, the inherent powers under Seition qB2 Cr p C;" iin Oe exercised .by the High Couft either to prevent anusi 7r tn" process of any Courl or otherwise to secure the encls of justice, though it n?y not be possibte to tay down *v priiiru,'li"rrty defined and sufficien y channelised and inrtex'iOii guiJutiu" o, rigid formulae ancl to give an exhaustive tist oi ifia-iin'as or cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(l) Where the atlegations made in the First tnformation Report or the comptaint, even if they are taken a,i ieiirace value.and accepted in their entirety ao not jriii racie constitute any offence or make oit a case'againrst the accused;

(2) Wherg the altegations in the First lnformation Repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not' Jiictose a- _gognizabl.e offence. iustifying an investigation by police olttcers under Section 156(1) of the Code -except inder an ' l99z scc 1cri.y +26

order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sectiort I i5(2) of the Code,

(3) Where the uncontrovefted allegations made i:t the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppotl af lt e same do not dlsciose the commission of any offence and ttake out a case agail)sl the accused;

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not c';nstitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a not cognizable offence. no investtgation is permitted by a police o7 :er without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S tion 155(2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or com) aint are so absurd and inherently tmprobable on the basis : which no prudent person can ever reaclt a just conclusion t, at there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accuse ,

(6) Where there ts an express legal bar engraftecl r any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (unc)r which a criminal proceeding is utstituted) to the instt ution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there ,; a specific provisiotl in the Code or the concerned Ar,t providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrievL( pafty;

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly att nded with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is r taliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking ,engeance on the accused and with a view to spite him duc to private and personal grudge.

9. ln the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana atl I others y. State of Telangana and anothe/, the Hon'ble Supreme Cir rurt, at paragraph Nos.18,25, 31 and 32 held that: "18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that ttt( atlegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and tltt appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent A,t .2 has not provided any specific details or described ar',y particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentior',e 1 the time, date, place, or manner in which the allegecl tarassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete a,d precise allegations. I2oz+ tNsc 9s3

25 A mere reference to the names of family members in a c^riminat case arising out or a matrioiii,t ,a,iiuiJ,"'*,tnout specific alegations indicating their active inuiwiiZnl"iniun oe nipped in the bud. lt is a we _recogrir"i ru"r, "i'oite out ot j,udiciat experience, that there is often"a tiidu,ii) toi*'it""tu ,tt the members of the husband,s ramity wneri o,-JmJsii{'ai"pr,", arise out of a matrimoniat discoi. si"i"g"'r"irtiJ"'o ,ro sweeping accusations unsupported by conciete "iiJii." o, pafticulariscd al*gations cannot form the basis -fo,i-iri.ina ptosecution. Courts musl exercse caution ii srJ cJses to preve.nl misuse ol legal provisions and the t",gil p,.iJi" una a,void unnecessary harassment of innocent ruiiv -i"ii.r" tn t,he present case, appelant Nos.2 to a, ino ir" ti""il,ii.r" or the famity of appe,ant No.1 have tr"in tiiiig-ii iiiiuil,i ",t,", and.have not resided in the matrimonial iouse oi Zp'pettant No.1 anct respondent No.2 herein. i"r"",-"iiy"'"iiiot o, dragged into criminat prosecutnn and tne "a.e'wiiid" t, ", ab.use of t e process of the taw in tne aoseici

- ii" sieciro allegatiorts made against eacltot them "--" "" "' 'P

31. Further, this Coutt in preeti Gupta vs. Slate of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 66/ hetd that the couds nuu""ii i," ,,itru_uty careful and cautious in deating with these "o_iLnl i'i .urt take pragmatic realties into consideration *iib iiitiiq *n matrimoniat cases. Ihe attegations or n"rus"iJii"'iv tn, husband's ctose relatives who had neen tiriig-i'i'i;)eil ctiles and never visited or rarely visited n" "pia"i iie,i. tne comptainant resided woutd have un 'iiiii"ti" li"rurt c,omolelrol I.he. a egations of the complainaii u,"'niu'ino a De scruttntzed with geal care and circumspection. 32 We therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FtR I:!:8.2 of 2022 frtcd by respondent tuo z *as iiiEt'"'j *in utteno.r mot.ives to settle petsottal scores anA gruagii igainst ?eeella:t,Na.1 and his f amity members i.e.. appZttai Nos.2 rc a netetn. Hence. the pesenl case at hancl falls within cateoory () o.f illustrative parametets higtttighted i, snoli tut."iiZi.i*", lhe High Coun. in the presint case, erred in not exercisinq the powers available to it under Section 482 CrpC ani tnJreOy failed to prevent abuse of the Cou,t's procisi ni""itiriii n" criminal prosecution against the appe ants.,, . 10. ln numerous cases, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases herd that making vague and generarised aregations during matrimoniar conflicts, if not scrutinized, wilr read to the misuse of regar processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taker :o invoke Section 498-,4 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wi i . Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any trima facie case against the husband and his family members befo r prosecuting the husband and his family members 11 . ln the present case, admittedly, there is no disc the marriage between lhe de facto complainant and acc the contents of the complaint, the marriage betu, r complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized orr further stated that after one month of marriage, thr harassing her, and since, 30.08.2023, the de facto corr residing at her parental house. However, the pres: lodged by the de faclo complainant on 13.12.2( satisfactory or plausible explanation for the delay carr complaint. lf really there was harassment as alle,J complainant would not have remained silent for suc period and would have complained much earlier. .tte with regard to rsed No.1. As per en the de facto 11.02.2022. lt is accused started olainant has been rt complaint was 23, without any ed in lodging the )d, the de facto h a considerable

12. On a careful perusal of contents of the entire r harge sheet, it is evident that there are no descriptive particulars as to ir what manner the petitioners herein have subjected the de facto complairr lnt to harassment t I l or cruelty or demand of dowry, except stating that they have instigated accused No.1 in harassing the de facto complainant. It is also not the case of lhe de facto comprainant that any dowry articre was handed over to the petitioners herein. rt is evident from the compraint that the petitioners are living separatcly from accused No.l and de facto com plaina nt. 13' For the foregoing discussion and in view of the raw raid down by the Hon'ble supreme court in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 5 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial especially when there were no arregations of cruerty or harassment for or in reration to demand of dowry against her.

14. Accordingly, both the Criminal petitions are allowed, quashing the . proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in c.c.No.6B of 2024 on the file of the learned lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 The 'r Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

2. The Station House Officer, Saroornagar W.p.S. Rachakonda.

3. One CC to SRt. p ANtMt REDDy Advocate tOpUCl

4. TWO CCS tO thE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High COUrt fOr thc State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies w ,/ / ._:::-.r;:rE^==:--=.=.;1.i-,.-==::-::.:=:=:=:-.d+-d#Rlf?d HIGH COURT DATED:04/'1112025

ORDER

CRLP.Nos.4195 AND 4248 of 2024 ALLOWING BOTH CRIMINAL PETITIONS. ltl' / \ 0 { t:i 2925 . ",^,1-C;' \\ :\.\.