HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11404 of 2022
ORDER:
1. Though notice served on the respondent No.2 none appeared.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the parents-in-law of the respondent No.2/ complainant. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Gadwal Rural Police Station on 21.11.2019 alleging that she was married to accused No.1 on 28.08.2015, thereafter, the petitioners and A4 were harassing her mentally and physically to get additional dowry. For the said reason, she approached the Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad and the police have counseled them. However, the accused No.1 started abusing her in filthy language as he did not like her and also threatened her that he would give divorce.
3. The specific allegation according to complaint and 161 Cr.P.C statement of the respondent No.2 is concerned, the petitioners who are parents-in-law and A4 also demanded to 2 bring more dowry. Except the said allegation that these petitioners had asked her to bring more dowry, there are no incidents or events that are narrated specifically to ascertain as to how these petitioners were harassing her. Mere allegation which is made vaguely stating that these petitioners asked the respondent No.2 to get additional dowry will not suffice to continue prosecution. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be mindful about proceedings against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple. 3
5. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case since the respondent No.2 has stated vaguely that these petitioners also demanded additional dowry.
6. This Court, by order dated 29.12.2022 quashed the proceedings against A4 in Crl.P.No.10654 of 2022. Since the allegations made against these petitioners and A4 are one and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against these petitioners also.
5. For the said reasons, the proceedings against these petitioners in C.C.No.1266 of 2020 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge at Gadwal, are liable to be quashed and accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 20.01.2023 kvs 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.11404 of 2022 Date: 20.01.2023 kvs