Telangana High Court

Kancharakuntla Andalu And 5 Others vs Kancharlakunta Shobharani And Another on 28 April, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

    THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.8458 of 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.2 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in

C.C.No.613 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate, at Siddipet. The offences alleged against the

petitioners are under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code

(for short 'IPC') and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act').

02. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7, Sri D.Raghavulu,

learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.S.Madhavi,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused

the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the

marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.1 was

solemnized about 12 years ago. During the wedlock she

gave birth to a female child. Ever since the marriage of the

1st respondent, her husband used to harass her physically

and mentally and the petitioners herein instigated her

husband. In that connection several panchayaths were held

and in the panchayath her husband was reprimanded and

inspite of it he did not mend his ways. It is also alleged that

her parents took her to her in laws house, but he did not

allow her to enter into the house and also abused her in filthy

language. With the above allegations a report was given by

the 1st respondent before the Siddipet I Town police station

and the case was registered as crime No.156 of 2022 for the

offences under Section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of

the Act.

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that

the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences

and that the allegations mentioned in the complaint and

charge sheet do not make out a case against the petitioners

under section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

There are no specific allegations against the petitioners

herein with regard to harassment for additional dowry.

Except stating that harassment of additional dowry, no

specific instances were given and she has not even

mentioned the additional dowry amount. Only bald and

vague allegations are made against the petitioners. Further

the accused No.1 and respondent No.1 are teachers working

in different places living together and they are not

continuously living with petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 who

are parents of the accused. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the

mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the father of the accused

No.1, the petitioner-accused No.4 is sister of the accused No.1

and the petitioner-accused No.5 is husband of sister of accused

No.1 and petitioner-accused No.6 is the paternal uncle of the

accused No.1 and petitioner-accused No.7 is the wife of the uncle

of the accused No.1 and they are residing separately from the

petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.1. The petitioners-

accused Nos.2 to 7 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of

respondent No.1 and the accused No.1. The petitioners never

demanded any dowry from respondent No.1 or from her parents.

There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused

Nos.2 to 7. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not

disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under

Sections 498-A of IPC and section 4 of the Act.

05. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings

against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7, learned counsel

for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Preeti Gupta &

Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another 1, wherein the

Honourable Supreme Court of India held at Paragraph Nos.

7, 11, 12, 27, 30 and 36 held that:

7. It was asserted that there is no specific allegation in the entire complaint against both the appellants. The statements of prosecution witnesses PWI to PW4 were also recorded along with the statement of the complainant.

None of the prosecution witnesses had stated anything against the appellants. These appellants had very clearly stated in this appeal that they had never visited Ranchi. The appellants also stated that they had never interfered with the internal affairs of the complainant and her husband. According to them, there was no question of any interference because the appellants had been living in different cities for a number of years.

11. The complainant could not dispute that appellant no.1 was a permanent resident living with her husband at Navasari, Surat, Gujarat for the last more than seven years and the appellant no.2 was permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra. They had never spent any time with respondent no.2.

12. According to the appellants, they are not the residents of Ranchi and if they are compelled to attend the Ranchi Court repeatedly then that would lead to insurmountable harassment and inconvenience to the appellants as well as to the complainant.

2010(6) Supreme 312

27. Admittedly, appellant no.1 is a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband for more than seven years. Similarly, appellant no.2 is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharasthra. They have never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with respondent no.2 and her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband's relatives. This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.

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 genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

36. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.

06. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1

submitted that there are specific allegations against the

petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only

after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to

dismiss this Criminal Petition.

07. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State

also prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

08. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint

discloses that accused No.1 and respondent No.1 are

teachers and they were not continuously living together with

accused Nos.2 and 3 who are mother and father in law of

respondent No.1 and there is nothing specific except stating

that accused No.2 supported the accused No.1, which does

not constitute the alleged offences and the petitioners-

accused Nos.4 to 7 never lived with accused No.1 and

respondent No.1 in a shared household at anytime and they

were living separately from the accused No.1 and

respondent No.1. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners-

accused Nos.2 to 7 were residing separately from the

accused No.1 and respondent No.1.

09. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State

of Telangana and another 2 wherein the Honourable

Supreme Court of India at Paragraph Nos.18, 25 and 31 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 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

AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173

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."

10. Except stating that there was a mental and

physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no

specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of

harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7.

Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by

concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis

for criminal prosecution.

11. 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