Telangana High Court

Pidishetti Sridhar vs The State Of Telangana on 28 April, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

   THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.1637 of 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the

proceedings against him in C.C.No.3741 of 2021 on the file of

the learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at

Warangal, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A

and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

02. Heard Mr. K.Rajashekar, learned counsel

representing Mr. G.Randeep Raj, counsel for the petitioner and

Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing

for the respondent No.1-State. No representation on behalf of

respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of de

facto complainant. The gist of the complaint is that the

marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 was performed with the 2nd

respondent-de facto complainant on 31.03.2019. At the time of

marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. They lived

happily for some time and subsequently, the respondent

No.2/de facto complainant blessed with a son. Thereafter, the

petitioner-accused No.1 and his parents harassed the de facto

complainant physically and mentally demanding additional

dowry and they threatened to perform another marriage of the

petitioner-accused No.1, if she will not bring additional dowry

and also threatened to kill her.

04. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner

that the petitioner is innocent and he has 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. There

are no specific allegations levelled against the

petitioner/accused No.1. The present complaint has been filed

by the de facto complainant on 14.09.2021 i.e. after issuance

of legal notice, dated 07.06.2021 by the petitioner/accused

No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused No.1 also filed

F.C.O.P.No.305 of 2021 seeking dissolution of marriage

between the petitioner/accused No.1 and the respondent

No.2/de facto complainant. The respondent No.2/de facto

complainant is facing charge for the offence under Section 302

of IPC for allegedly causing the death of father of the

petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, all the allegations are levelled

against the petitioner/accused No.1 only to settle the personal

scores of respondent No.2. The contents of the complaint or

charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract

the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and

Sections 3, 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal

proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1, learned

counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Dara

Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and

another1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.18,

25, 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

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

2024 INSC 953

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.

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."

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State

submitted that there are specific allegations against the

petitioner and the truth or otherwise would come out only after

conducting full-fledged trial by the concerned Court and prayed

to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. It is also apparent on the face of the record that

the accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.305 of 2021 seeking

dissolution of marriage between the petitioner/accused No.1

and respondent No.2. The present calendar case filed by the

respondent No.2 appears to be counterblast to the petition for

dissolution of marriage sought by the accused No.1 as the

complaint for the offence under Section 498-A and 506 of IPC

is lodged later. There are no specific details or descriptive

particulars of instances of mental and physical harassment

caused by the petitioner-accused No.1. Such generalised and

sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or

particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal

prosecution.

07. 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 498A 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. Insofar as Section 506 of

IPC is concerned, except stating that petitioner/accused No.1

at the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3 abused her, there are

no specific details as to in what manner, the petitioner/accused

No.1 caused criminal intimidation against the respondent

No.2/de facto complainant. Moreover, it is the case of the

petitioner/accused No.1 that the respondent No.2 is

responsible for the death of father of the petitioner/accused

No.1. Therefore, the essential ingredients required for

constituting the alleged offences are not made out against the

petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, the petitioner/accused No.1

cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same

would be an abuse of process of law in the absence of specific

allegations made against him.

08. In the Judgment of State of Haryana and others

v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others2, 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;

1992 SCC (Cri) 426

(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;

(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.

09. In the present case on hand, the respondent No.2

filed the present criminal case against the petitioner/accused

No.1 after the filing of F.C.O.P. by the petitioner/accused No.1

seeking dissolution of marriage. As observed supra, on

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 petitioner-accused

No.1. It appears that the present criminal proceedings are

instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

petitioner-accused No.1 and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge. Therefore, the present case falls

under the ambit and parameters of point No.7 of the Bhajan