Telangana High Court
Venkat Reddy Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5407 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against
them in C.C.No.1284 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate at Vemulawada, Rajanna-Sircilla District, pertaining to Crime
No.365 of 2021 of P.S. Vemulawada Town, registered for the offences
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
2. Heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State. Notices sent to respondent No.2-de facto complainant
by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as through learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor were returned with an endorsement
'refused'. Refusal of notice amounts to service of notice. Inspite of the
same, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused
the record.
3. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of the 2nd respondent-
de facto complainant. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are the mother,
father, brother and married sister of the petitioner-accused No.1.
4. The gist of the complaint is that the de facto complainant was
married to the petitioner-accused No.1 on 26.11.2010 and it was an
arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was
given. They lived happily for few days. Thereafter, the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 to 5 started harassing the de facto complainant physically
and mentally demanding additional dowry. Out of wedlock, they were
blessed with a baby girl. After the birth of baby girl, the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 to 5 forced the de facto complainant to kill the baby as
she is of black complexion. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 necked
out the de facto complainant from the matrimonial home. Hence, the
present complaint.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the
petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case
by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the
matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and petitioner-
accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are
staying away from the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1,
therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the
de facto complainant. It is further contended that in the year 2013, the
de facto complainant has lodged a criminal complaint against the
petitioners herein. She has also filed M.C. and D.V.C. cases. However,
the said cases were compromised. Thereafter, they led happy marital life
for some period and again in the year 2021, the present complaint was
lodged on the very same set of allegations of the earlier complaint. It is
also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are
attributed to them. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that the petitioners herein have harassed the de facto
complainant to bring additional dowry and being unable to bear the
same, the present complaint has been lodged. It is further contended that
all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet
are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the
proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the
petition.
7. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted
hereunder:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.--
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- For the purpose of this
section, "cruelty" means--(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
8. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal
and others 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
The following categories of cases can be stated by way of
illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused;
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused;
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.
9. In the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State
of Telangana and another 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph
Nos.31 and 32 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.
25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without
specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be
nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial 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 evidence or
particularised allegations 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
avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In
the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of
the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities
and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant
No.1 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 law in the absence of specific
allegations made against each of them.
2024 INSC 953
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand
(2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely
careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must
take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the
husband's close relatives 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 complainant are required to
be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned 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 family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6
herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7)
of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore,
the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the
powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby
failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the
criminal prosecution against the appellants."
10. In numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with
similar cases held that making vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal
processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a
wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section
498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the
Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case
against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the
husband and his family members.
11. In the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to
the marriage between the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused
No.1 and it was also an arranged marriage. On a perusal of the
allegations made in the FIR or charge sheet, even if they are taken on
face value, no substantial and specific allegations have been made
against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5, except stating that they
harassed the de facto complainant by demanding additional dowry. The
de facto complainant has not provided any specific details or described
any particular instance of harassment meted out by the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 to 5. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place,
or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. It is also an
admitted fact that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, who are the
parents, brother and married sister of petitioner-accused No.1, are
staying away from the family of de facto complainant and petitioner-
accused No.1. The de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1
have set-up a separate family at Hyderabad.
12. The marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 was performed with
de facto complainant on 26.11.2010. Out of wedlock, they were blessed
with a baby girl. In the year 2013, the de facto complainant has lodged a
criminal complaint against the petitioner-accused No.1 on the very same
set of allegations of the present complaint. During the pendency of
investigation in the said criminal complaint, a baby boy was born. She
has also filed M.C. and D.V.C. cases against the petitioner-accused
No.1. However, all the said cases were compromised. Thereafter, they
led happy marital life and again a baby boy was born. In the year 2021,
the de facto complainant has come up with the present complaint against
the petitioner-accused Nos.1 to 5 on the very same set of allegations of
the earlier complaint. In fact, if the allegations of harassment made by the
de facto complainant are genuine, it is improbable for her to compromise
the criminal complaint, D.V.C. and M.C. cases and she would also have
refused to resume cohabitation with her husband i.e., the petitioner-
accused No.1. Hence, it appears that only to settle personal scores and
grudges against the petitioner-accused No.1 and his family members i.e.,
the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, the present complaint was lodged
against them, therefore, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 cannot be
subjected to prosecution, merely basing on the bald averments of
harassment.
13. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments referred to
above, the petitioners cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and
the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of
specific allegations made against each of them. Hence, the proceedings
against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.1284
of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vemulawada,
Rajanna-Sircilla District.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 08.04.2025
rev
