HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6847 AND 6874 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition No.6847 of 2020 is filed by accused Nos.4
and 5 under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.6307 of 2019
on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar,
Cyberabad, whereas Criminal Petition No.6874 of 2020 is filed by
accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 to quash the proceedings against them in the
said C.C.
2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.6847 of 2020 are
accused Nos.4 and 5, while the petitioners in Criminal Petition
No.6874 of 2020 are accused Nos.2, 3 and 6. The offences alleged
against them are under Sections - 498A, 420 and 323 of IPC and
Sections - 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Heard Mr. P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel for
the petitioners, and Mr. V. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State in both the Criminal Petitions.
4. As per the charge sheet, allegations against the petitioners are as under:
KL,J 2 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020
i) The marriage of respondent No.2 - de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed on 05.12.2015.
ii) Accused No.2 and 3 are in-laws of respondent No.2, while accused No.4 is her brother-in-law and accused No.5 is wife of accused No.4. Accused No.6 is mediator to the said marriage, and maternal uncle of accused No.1.
iii) At the time of marriage, on the demand of accused No.1 and his parents, the parents of respondent No.2 gave cash of Rs.2.00 lakhs and presented 15 tulas of gold, 2 tulas of gold to accused No.1, house-hold articles and 1½ acre of agricultural land at Sitharampuram Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District.
iv) After marriage, respondent No.2 joined the company of accused No.1 at her marital home in Khammam, and stayed along with accused Nos.1 to 5 for 4-5 days, and later, they shifted to Hyderabad. After one week, accused Nos.4 and 5 left for UK. Respondent No.2 and accused No.1 started living in a rented house at Habsiguda.
v) Within a week, accused No.1 started harassing respondent No.2, both physically and mentally on silly issues, such as making comments in the presence of relatives that respondent No.2 does not know cooking properly, not allowing her to speak with her parents and that she should speak to accused No.3 alone etc., the details of which have been mentioned in the charge sheet.
KL,J 3 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020
vi) Accused Nos.2 and 3, in-laws, also harassed respondent No.2 saying that she did not know cooking. Further, whenever, her in-laws visits their house, accused No.1 used to tell lies against her, on which, her in-laws used to abuse her.
vii) Later, respondent No.2 came to know that accused No.1 had already married to one Deepika on 25.12.2013 at Arya Samaj, Delhi.
viii) Accused No.1 went to Singapore on work Visa. Then the things became worse and during the said period, respondent No.2 gave birth to a female child on 15.10.2016. After return on Work Visa, they took a rented house at Hastinapuram and used to stay there. When she questioned about the first marriage, accused No.1 used to quarrel with her. After some time, accused No.1 has become jobless and addicted to bad vices. As respondent No.2 was unable to bear the harassment meted out by accused No.1, she left the house and started residing with her parents.
ix) Accused No.1 lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 at Rajendra Nagar Police Station for not leading marital life, on which, the police held counseling between the parties. After some days, again accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing respondent No.2 both physically and mentally. Accused Nos.4 to 6 knowing fully well about the first marriage of accused No.1, concealed the same and KL,J 4 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 cheated respondent No.2. Thus, all the accused are liable to be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences.
5. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken the same on file vide C.C. No.6307 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences against the accused including the petitioners herein.
6. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 herein have filed Criminal Petition No.6847 of 2020 to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid C.C. with the following grounds:
i) Accused Nos.4 and 5 are innocent and no way concerned with the alleged offences and that they are falsely implicated in the above case as they happened to be brother-in-law and co-sister of respondent No.2.
ii) Accused Nos.4 and 5 have settled in London, UK in the year 2011 and that hardly they visited Hyderabad on two occasions, viz., at the time of marriage of accused No.1 and respondent No.2, and at the time of delivery of accused No.5. Thus, the question of harassing respondent No.2 by accused Nos.4 and 5 does not arise.
iii) There are no specific allegations against accused Nos.4 and 5, and there is no evidence to prove the same.
iv) Accused No.1 has already filed a petition against respondent No.2 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty vide FCOP N.841 of 2019 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at KL,J 5 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 L.B. Nagar. As a counter blast, respondent No.2 filed the present case with false allegations.
v) In order to harass the entire family of accused No.1, respondent No.2 has implicated all the family members in the present case.
vi) In support of their submissions, accused Nos.4 and 5 have relied on a decision in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab1.
7. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 have filed Criminal Petition No.6874 of 2020 to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid C.C. on the same grounds that are raised by accused Nos.4 and 5 apart from the following grounds:
i) Accused Nos.2 and 3 are innocent and are no way concerned with the alleged offences and that they are falsely implicated in the above case as they happened to be the in-laws of respondent No.2. Whereas, accused No.6 is a mediator to the marriage and he is no way concerned with the alleged harassment etc. In fact, the entire charge sheet does not disclose about the role of accused No.6.
ii) Respondent No.2 was residing with her husband, accused No.1 right from 2015 to 2019 at different places viz., Habsiguda, Meerpet, Hastinapur and Nagloe, whereas accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing at Khammam as accused No.2 was working as RTC Employee in Khammam Bus Depot and retired on 31.03.2019. Thus, 1 . (2000) 5 SCC 207 KL,J 6 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 the question of harassing respondent No.2 by accused Nos.2 and 3 does not arise.
8. With the aforesaid submissions, the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid C.C.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, would contend that there are specific allegations mentioned by respondent No.2 in her complaint, date wise and the harassment that was meted out by the petitioners towards her. The police after going through the complaint and after satisfying that there are grounds of harassment etc., registered a case vide FIR No.219 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences. During the investigation, the police have recorded the statements of relevant witnesses and on the analysis of the same, came to a conclusion that, prima facie, there is evidence with regard to the harassment meted out by the petitioners, filed charge sheet against them for the aforesaid offences.
i) Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners have to disprove the allegations during trial and, therefore, at this stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
ii) With the said submissions, learned counsel sought to dismiss both the criminal petitions.
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the police having recorded the relevant witnesses and having gone KL,J 7 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 through the contents of complaint, filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and accused No.1. There are specific allegations against each of the accused in the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 with regard to harassment etc., meted out by them towards respondent No.2. The contention that the petitioners are innocent and that they are no way concerned with the alleged offences and that they are falsely implicated in the above case etc., are all to be tested during trial, but not at this stage and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.
i) With the aforesaid contentions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the criminal petitions.
11. FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) As stated above, the undisputed facts are that accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents of accused No.1 and accused Nos.4 and 5 are brother and sister-in-law of accused No.1. Accused No.6 is mediator of the marriage and also maternal uncle of accused No.1. The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed on 05.12.2015, and it is an arranged marriage. They have stayed at Khammam for 4-5 days and thereafter, they have shifted to Hyderabad. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are residents of UK at that particular point of time, and they came to India at the time of marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2. After one week of marriage, they left UK.
KL,J 8 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020
ii) In the charge sheet, it is specifically mentioned that respondent No.2 questioned accused No.1 about the first marriage and he told her that she (Deepika) is his friend. One day Ms. Divya, one of the friends of accused No.1, chatted with him from Malasia and he became dull whole day. On enquiry, accused No.1 told that Divya's friend loved him and she is still waiting for him to marry. Then, respondent No.2 questioned accused No.1 whether he loved her, for which he denied. On the next day, respondent No.2 left to her office and had taken cell number of Divya from accused No.1 and made phone call to Divya, who told her that accused No.1 has tragedy before the marriage, hope that he is now OK, disconnected the call and informed the same to accused No.1. The said fact was informed to accused No.3 by accused No.1. Accused No.3 abused respondent No.2 in filthy language when she came from the office. After that, accused No.1 beat respondent No.2 by questioning that why she was making phone calls to Divya. By that time, respondent No.2 was sixth month pregnant.
iii) It is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that on the next day, respondent No.2 informed the same to her parents, who asked accused No.1 to send their daughter to their house. Accordingly, accused No.1 dropped respondent No.2 at her parents' house. After few days, accused No.1 went to Singapore on work. Respondent No.2 expected delivery within one week. At that time, accused No.1 telephoned her uncle and abused everybody. Her uncle KL,J 9 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 was in USA at that particular point of time. Within her delivery, she came to know about accused No.1 through LinkedIn that he is already having dependent VISA. Respondent No.2 was blessed with a female baby on 15.10.2016. The said fact was informed to her in-laws by the father of respondent No.2 i.e., LW.3, and she informed the said fact to accused No.1. Her in-laws came to her parents' house. After five months, accused No.1 came from Singapore to see the baby, but he told everybody that they did not inform about the birth of daughter. A panchayat was held with regard to the same at Suryapet. Thereafter, accused No.1 took respondent No.2 to his residence at Khammam.
iv) It is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that respondent No.2 enquired with regard to the dependent VISA of accused No.1, who in turn informed her that he has already married a woman for the purpose of going to UK. The said woman did not like him and he has no relation with that woman and, thus, accused No.1 told lies to respondent No.2. They have stayed at Khammam for three months and came back to Hyderabad. She found accused No.1's first marriage Photographs in the mail and on coming to know about the said fact, accused No.3 started abusing her and accused No.1 beat her.
v) It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that a panchayat was held in which accused No.3 agreed that it is the mistake of accused No.1 and after coming to know about that marriage he had taken divorce and showed the same. Then the elders convinced her and sent her. Accused No.2 got transferred from Khammam to KL,J 10 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 Hyderabad. Accused Nos.1 to 3 resided at Attapur. Accused No.1 lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 at Rajendranagar Police Station that she is not coming to lead matrimonial life. The elders have conducted counselling between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 thrice wherein accused No.1 has agreed certain conditions. They have taken a rented house at Nagole and accused Nos.2 and 3 also resided with them. After fifteen days, accused Nos.2 and 3 went to Khammam on some work. Again, accused No.1 has tortured her, both physically and mentally. It is also mentioned that after the marriage, accused Nos.4 and 5 came to India twice, but they never came to respondent No.2.
vi) In the complaint as well as the statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 has categorically stated that accused Nos.4 to 6 never tortured her, but all of them knew about the first marriage of accused No.1 which they have concealed and cheated her. The same were also stated by LWs.2 and 3, parents of respondent No.2 and other witnesses in the statements recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. On the analysis of the said statements, the Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that accused Nos.4 to 6 never tortured respondent No.2, but they all knew about the first marriage of accused No.1 which they have concealed and cheated her. Even then, the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet mentioned that accused Nos.4 to 6 have committed the offences under Sections - 498A, 420 and 323 of IPC and Sections - 3 KL,J 11 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In fact, there is no allegation attracting the offence under Section - 323 of IPC against accused Nos.4 to 6, and the allegation is only against accused No.1.
vii) It is relevant to note that accused No.6 is only a mediator of the marriage, and according to respondent No.2, he is maternal uncle of accused No.1. It is the specific allegation of respondent No.2 that accused No.1married one Deepika on 25.12.2013 at Arya Samaj, Delhi. According to her, the petitioners in both the criminal petitions, accused Nos.2 to 6 are aware of the said fact, but they have concealed the same. Thus, absolutely there is no evidence to show that accused Nos.4 and 5 are aware of the first marriage of accused No.1, and so also accused No.6.
viii) In view of the above discussion, according to this Court, the contents of the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of offences alleged against accused Nos.4 to 6. However, prima facie, there are specific allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3, in-laws of respondent No.2 about the harassment said to have meted out by them towards respondent No.2.
ix) In Ranjana Gopalrao Thorat v. State of Maharashtra2 relied on by the petitioners, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench dealt with the scope of Section - 498A of IPC. In the said case, the deceased was the first wife of Baburao Charhate, accused therein. 2 . 2007 Crl.L.J. 3866 KL,J 12 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 During subsistence of the said marriage, he married the applicant. In the said context, the Bombay High Court held that since the marriage between the accused and the applicant is void on account of subsistence of first marriage and that she does not fall within the scope of Section - 498A of IPC, and, accordingly, proceedings against her have been quashed. But, the said principle is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
x) In Smt. Sunita Goyal v. State of Punjab3, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on examination of facts of the case therein, held that to attract the penal provisions of the offences punishable under Sections - 406 and 498A of IPC, there must be specific allegations/overt acts and prima facie material against the accused therein to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to them. Whereas, in the case on hand, as discussed above, there are specific allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3, while no allegations against accused Nos.4 to 6. Thus, the said decision is not helpful to Accused Nos.2 and 3.
xi) In Sunita Jha v. State of Jharkhand4, the complainant therein has live-in relationship with accused, and the Apex Court on an examination of facts of the case therein held that Section - 498A of IPC being a penal provision deserves strict construction, neither a girlfriend nor concubine is a relative of a husband within the meaning 3 . 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 3610 4 . (2010) 10 SCC 190 KL,J 13 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 of Section - 498A of IPC. Whereas, in the present case, respondent No.2 got married accused No.1 and, therefore, the said decision is not helpful to the case of petitioners herein.
xii) A. Subash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh5 deals with a case of bigamy and, therefore, the principle laid down in the said decision is in applicable to the case on hand.
xiii) Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh6 also a case of second marriage during life time of first wife, moreover, the trial Court therein has convicted, which was confirmed by the High Court, and the Apex Court reduced the sentence and, therefore, the said decision is also not helpful to the petitioners herein.
xiv) In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh7, the Apex Court held that casual reference to the family members of husband (unmarried sister and elder brother of husband) in FIR as co-accused as well as parents of the accused, and in the absence of any specific allegation and prima facie case against co-accused, proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the case on hand, there are specific allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3, while no allegations against accused Nos.4 to 6.
xv) In Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh8, the wife therein was living separately since April 2011 due to strained relationship 5 . (2011) 7 SCC 616 6 . (2007) 15 SCC 369 7 . (2012) 10 SCC 741 8 . (2014) 13 SCC 567 KL,J 14 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 with her husband, and in the said circumstances, the Apex Court held that there is no question of any beating by the appellants as the second respondent therein was not interested to live together. The facts of the said case are altogether different to the case on hand in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
xvi) In Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh9, the Apex Court gave remedial measures and directions in order to avoid implication of family members of husband without there-being any specific allegations. But, in the case on hand, prima facie, there are specific allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 and, therefore, the said decision is inapplicable to accused Nos.2 and 3.
xvii) In Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu10, it was held that the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of offences alleged against the accused therein.
xviii) In Preeti Gupta v State of Jharkhand11, the Apex Court held as under:
"30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.
At the same time, rapid increase in the number of 9 . (2018) 10 SCC 472 10 . (2005) 3 SCC 507 11 . (2010) 7 SCC 667 KL,J 15 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even KL,J 16 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases."
xix) The Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra12 has categorically held that quashing criminal 12 . AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J 17 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
KL,J 18 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 xx) In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh13, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
xxi) In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra14, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High Courts under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article - 226 of the Constitution of India, which are as under:
"....
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
13
. AIR 2021 SC 931 14 . AIR 2021 SC 1918 KL,J 19 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities.
The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned KL,J 20 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020 Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
12. CONCLUSION:
i) As discussed above, prima facie, there are specific allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3, in-laws of respondent No.2 and, therefore, the proceedings against them cannot be quashed. However, there are no specific allegations against accused Nos.4 to 6 even as per the contents of the charge sheet and, therefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.
KL,J 21 Crl.P. Nos.6847 & 6874 of 2020
ii) Criminal Petition No.6847 of 2020 is accordingly allowed, and the proceedings in C.C. No.6307 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed against the petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 5. Further, Criminal Petition No.6874 of 2020 is allowed in part quashing the proceedings in the said C.C. No.6307 of 2019 against petitioner No.3 - Accused No.6 alone while dismissing the petition filed by accused Nos.2 and 3.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 31st August, 2021 Mgr