G.K.Vijaya Kranthi vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1612 Tel

Telangana High Court

G.K.Vijaya Kranthi vs The State Of Telangana on 7 August, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI


                 CRIMINAL PETITION No.8976 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1

seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3711 of 2020 on

the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard Mr. Dokka Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for

the respondent No.1-State and Sri Arava Sri Latha, learned counsel for

respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the

husband of the respondent No.2-de facto complainant and their marriage

was solemnized on 04.05.1992 and that the petitioner-accused No.1 is

working as a Police Constable at Kalwakurthy Police Station, and out of

the wedlock, they were blessed with two children. It is further alleged

that about eight months prior to the filing of the complaint, the respondent

No.2 came to know that the petitioner-accused No.1 had contacted a

second marriage with the help of his parents without obtaining a divorce

from her. It is also alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1 and his family

members have been harassing her both physically and mentally, and

have failed to provide basic necessities to her. Hence, the present

complaint was filed for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner-

accused No.1 is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case

by the respondent No.2, only to wreck vengeance in view of the

matrimonial disputes between the respondent No.2 and petitioner-

accused No.1. It is contended that the 2nd respondent refused to stay

with the petitioner-accused No.1 at Kalwakurthy and staying at

Hyderabad. It is further contended that the petitioner-accused No.1

never contacted another marriage as is evident from the charge sheet

filed by the Police, where the offence under Section 494 of IPC is

deleted, since no substantial evidence is established against the

petitioner-accused No.1. It is further contended that even as per the

complaint, there is no allegation of any harassment, as such, the

ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC does not attract. It is further

contended that the petitioner-accused No.1 is paying an amount of

Rs.12,000/- towards monthly maintenance to the respondent No.2. Thus,

he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well

as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 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, they prayed to dismiss the

petition.

6. 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.

7. 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,

1992 SCC (Cri) 426

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;

(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.

8. 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.

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

2024 INSC 953

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."

9. 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.

10. In the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to

the marriage between the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused

No.1. On a perusal of the allegations made in the charge sheet, even if

they are taken on face value, no substantial and specific allegations have

been made against the petitioner-accused No.1, except stating that the

petitioner-accused No.1 harassed the respondent No.2 and contacted

the second marriage, but the Police deleted the offence under Section

494 of IPC since the said allegation was not proved. Moreover, the

name of the so-called second wife is not mentioned anywhere. The

respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any

particular instance of harassment meted out by the petitioner-accused

No.1. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in

which the alleged harassment occurred. In the absence of such material,

even if the allegations contained in the charge sheet are taken at their

face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not, prima facie,

disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner-accused

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

attended with mala fide intention and maliciously 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 within the parameters of point Nos.1

and 7 of Ch.Bhajan Lal's case cited supra.

11. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments referred to

above, the petitioner-accused No.1 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 him. Hence, the

proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 are liable to be

quashed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the

proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.3711 of 2020

on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Hyderabad.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:07.08.2025 Ksk/KHRM