Smt.Mohmmad Nazma Begum vs State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 280 Tel

            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

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.

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

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11404 of 2022

Date: 20.01.2023

kvs