Hajera Anjum vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5230 Tel

Telangana High Court

Hajera Anjum vs The State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

    THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.11831 of 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.4 to 8 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in

C.C.No.3056 of 2022 on the file of XV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The offences alleged

against the petitioners are under Section 498-A, 406, 506 of

the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and section 4 and 6 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the Act').

02. Heard M/s.Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, learned

counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8 and

Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State. Inspite of substitute service vide paper publication which is

filed on record, there is no representation on behalf of respondent

No.2. Perused the record.

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

marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was

solemnized in August, 2017. After marriage she led happy

life for a couple of days and later her in laws started passing

remarks over the jahez articles and abused her in filthy

language. In the month of November, 2017 her husband

went to Dubai by leaving her at the mercy of her in laws, in

his absence her in laws used to harass her physically and

mentally and forcibly took away all gold ornaments and ill

treated her. Later in January, 2018 she joined her husband

at Dubai, but he did not take care of her and ill treated and

harassed her physically and mentally. On 13.02.2018 on the

instigation of her in laws her husband took her back to India

and he again left to Dubai on 16.02.2018 leaving respondent

No.2 in India and her in laws treated her as a maid servant

and did not provide minimum necessities. She informed the

said ill treatment to her husband when her husband came

back from Dubai after 8 days, but he did not take care. The

petitioners are trying to perform second marriage for want of

additional dowry and on 24.02.2018 they demanded 2 lakhs

of additional dowry and when her parents expressed their

disability she was driven out of the matrimonial home and

also threatened her with dire consequences. On 08.07.2018

the petitioners went to her parents house and picked up

quarrel with her and insisted to take divorce. Hence, the

respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences

under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 of IPC and sections 4 and 6

of the Act.

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that

the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences

and that they never harassed the respondent No.2. Being the

sisters, brothers and brother in law of the accused No.1 they

were implicated in the present case on the allegation of

demand of additional dowry and that the petitioners are

residing at different places having different abode than that

of the accused No.1 and they are leading their respective

lives separately. The petitioners submit that there are no

specific allegations against them and the police at the time of

filing charge sheet has not taken into consideration that there

is no prima facie evidence against them and filed the charge

sheet. It is submitted that even if the entire version of the

prosecution is assumed to be true, then also, there is no

specific role or specific allegations against the petitioners to

attract the alleged offences. The petitioner-accused No.4 is the

sister, the petitioner-accused No.5 is another sister, the

petitioner-accused No.6 is brother, the petitioner-accused No.7 is

another brother of accused No.1 and petitioner-accused No.8 is

the husband of accused No.5 and they are residing separately

from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The

petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8 never interfered in the matrimonial

issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners

never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her

parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-

accused Nos.4 to 8. 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 sections 4 and 6 of the

Act.

05. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings

against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8, learned counsel

for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Muppidi

Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. V. The State of Andhra

Pradesh & Anr. 1, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court

of India held that:

9. There is no denial of the fact that the appellants reside at Hyderabad whereas the de-facto complainant stayed at Guntur in her marital house.

There is no specific date as to when the present

2025 0 Supreme (SC) 707

appellants visited Guntur and joined accused nos. 1 to 3 in demanding dowry from de-facto complainant. Considering the growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives of the husband, this Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741 has deprecated the practice involving the relatives of the husband for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The following has been held in para 18:

"18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [(2005)3 SCC 507: 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed."

10. In a recent judgment in the matter of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr., (2024) INSC 953: (2024) 12 SCR 559, this Court has again reiterated and deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband in dowry related matters. The following has been held in paras 24, 25, 28, 30, 31 & 32:

"24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos.4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

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 Iiving in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial

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.

28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. 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. Consequently, this Court

has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) SCC 693 observed as follows:

"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts."

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."

11. In the present case also, it is an admitted position that the appellants are residing at Hyderabad whereas the de-facto complainant stayed in her marital house at Guntur at the relevant point of time. She is presently staying in USA, There is omnibus allegation against the appellants that they too used to demand dowry or instigate accused nos. I to 3 who are not before us, in demanding dowry.

12. Considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the view, having relied on this Court's previous decisions in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) & Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), the present criminal

case against the appellants deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and Criminal Case No. 359 of 2016 against the appellants is quashed.

06. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2

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 the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8 were living

separately from the accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and

they being sisters, brothers and brother in law of accused

No.1 are no way connected to the alleged offences.

Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8

were residing separately from the accused No.1 and

respondent No.2.

09. 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.4 to 8.

Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by

concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis

for criminal prosecution.

10. 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. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8

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.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the

case including the settled principle of law laid down by the

Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above decision,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation

of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to

8 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the

proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8 are

liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and

the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8

in C.C.No.3056 of 2022 on the file of XV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 30.04.2025 BV