Telangana High Court
Mallepally Shashidhar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8390 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short
'Cr.P.C') by the petitioner/accused No.3, seeking to
quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2728 of
2021 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Medchal Malkajgiri District (for short, the trial Court),
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. Heard Mr.T.Pradhyumna Kumar Reddy, learned
counsel representing petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.1/State and Mr.P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of
2nd respondent and A-1 was performed on 16.02.2020.
Their engagement was performed on 08.12.2019 and at
EVV,J
that time, the parents of 2nd respondent gave Rs 2,00,000/-
cash, Rs. 30,000/- for clothes and 3 Tulas of gold to the
accused as dowry and at the time of marriage, 2.5kg silver
ornaments, 10 lakhs cash for household articles and
65 Tulas of gold was given as dowry, apart from of all
these, the parents of the 2nd respondent spent
Rs.38,00,000/- for marriage. After two days of marriage,
it is alleged that all the accused harassed the
2nd respondent for an additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-
for purchase of a plot. Later, 2nd respondent joined her
husband A-1 at Singapore and after couple of days, A-1
went home in a drunken condition and beat her and forced
her to ask for more money from her parents. Later, the
2nd respondent conceived and fell ill but even after that A-1
fought with her and sent her back to India as he was not
interested in bearing medical expenses of the
2nd respondent and after that A-1 never called her and due
to the mental harassment meted out by her, she underwent
abortion. A-1 blamed the 2nd respondent and never
responded to her calls and intentionally blocked her phone
numbers and her parents phone numbers and even sent a
EVV,J
legal notice. When the 2nd respondent and her parents
went to house of A-2 to ask about the same, she did not
open the door and insulted them in front of their
neighbors. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent gave a report
against A-1 to A-4 and the same was registered as Crime
No.48 of 2021 on the file of Medipally Police Station, after
completion of investigation, the police filed the present
charge-sheet for offences u/s 498-A, 323 IPC and 3 & 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned senior counsel representing petitioner/A3
contended that the petitioner/A3 is innocent of all the
offences alleged against him and he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The Petitioner herein is
brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent (elder brother of A-1).
He further contended that immediately after marriage of
A-1 and the 2nd respondent on 16.02.2020, the
Petitioner/A3 returned to USA on 01.03.2020 and since
then the Petitioner has never stayed under one roof with
the 2nd respondent. He further contended that apart from
bald and omnibus allegation that after two days of
EVV,J
marriage, A-1 to A-4 harassed the 2nd respondent for
additional dowry, the name of the Petitioner is nowhere
mentioned. He further contended that the marriage of the
petitioner herein took place in the year, 2009 and later, in
2012, he moved to USA along with his family and ever
since he had been residing in USA. He further contended
that the Petitioner herein did not even attend the
engagement ceremony of A-1 and the 2nd respondent and
he only met the 2nd respondent for the first-time during
marriage. He further contended that the 2nd respondent is
an educated lady, having studied M.Sc Bio-Technology and
she would not have kept quiet for such a long time if the
allegations that are made in the charge-sheet with regard
to harassment or demand of dowry were to be true.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/A3 further
submits that Section 322 IPC which defines "voluntarily
causing grievous hurt" reads as follows:
"Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he
intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause
is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is
grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous
hurt."
EVV,J
He further submits that even a bare reading of the charge-
sheet, would make it clear that Section 323 IPC does not
attract to the Petitioner herein. There is no allegation as
against the Petitioner herein with regard to voluntarily
causing grievous hurt to the 2nd respondent. The said
allegation is against A-1 during their stay in Singapore.
6. He further submits that 2nd respondent has gone to
an extent of even naming aunt of A-1 (arrayed as A-4), who
acted as a mediator for their marriage, which itself speaks
volumes about the attitude of the 2nd respondent in falsely
implicating the family members of A-1 out of personal
vendetta.
7. He further submits that Sec. 498-A IPC does not
attract to the petitioner herein which reads as follows:
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
EVV,J
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.
He further submits that even taking into account of all the
allegations made, no case is made out against the
Petitioner herein as the charge-sheet does not reveal any
specific allegation other than vague and bald allegations.
There is no specific overt act attributed to the Petitioner
herein.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in K.Subba Rao
v. The State of Telangana, observed that:-
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against
the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives
of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out."
Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in Geeta
Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, specifically
held that the continuation of proceedings against whom
EVV,J
specific instances of harassment are not alleged in the
charge-sheet or in the statements, would amount to abuse
of process of Law.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the in Preethi
Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and
another, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically
concluded that the implication of the relatives in the
complaint is only meant to harass and to humiliate them
and permitting complainant to pursue such complaint
would be an abuse of process of law. Having said so,
The Apex Court went on to quash the complaint on the
ground that it would be unfair to compel the accused to
undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial
Before parting with this case, we would like to observe
that a serious relook of the entire provision is
warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
incident are reflected in a large number of complaints.
The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a
very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for
all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may
also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering
of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these
complaints have not only flooded the courts but also
have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace,
harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time
that the legislature must take into consideration the
pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the
existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take
EVV,J
into consideration the informed public opinion and the
pragmatic realities in consideration and make
necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.
He further submits that the facts of the present case
are in total consonance with guidelines No. 5 and 7 laid
down in State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal &
Others 1, which read as follows:
"(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person.com ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused...
...(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide andior 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."
10. He further submits that all the facts have been
misrepresented and the allegations that have been made
are fabricated and lacks any corroboration and the
complaint contains mere repetition without any material
evidence collected and the 2nd respondent has implicated
the Petitioner herein with an ulterior motive for wrecking
vengeance on the Petitioner, as such continuation of the
proceedings in C.C.No.2728 of 2021 before the trial Court
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
EVV,J
is nothing abuse of the process of Law and the same is
liable to be quashed. Therefore, he prayed to quash all
further proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in
C.C.No.2728 of 2021 before the trial Court.
11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended
that unless and until a full-fledged trial is conducted,
truth cannot be elicited and interference of this Court at
this stage is unwarranted. Therefore, he prayed to
dismiss the Criminal Petition.
12. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent/complainant also
argued in similar lines and sought for dismissal of Criminal
Petition.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
considering the submissions made by learned counsel for
the respective parties and relying upon the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
EVV,J
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 2, Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna
and another Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu and another 3,
Devendra and others Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and
another 4, Geeta Mehrota and another Vs. State of Utter
Pradesh 5 dated 17.10.2012, K.Subba Rao vs State of
Telangana, Preethi Gupta and another vs State of
Jharkhand and another, wherein it was held that if the
first information report does not disclose any material
which constitutes an offence, merely making omnibus
allegations against the accused, do not constitute any
offence under any circumstances. Therefore, this Court is
of the opinion that the contents of the complaint reveals
that except making general allegations, no specific and
distinct allegations are made against the petitioner/A3 and
in the absence of any specific role attributed to the
petitioner herein, it would be unjust if he is forced to go
through the tribulations of the trial.
2 1992 (Supp.) 1 SCC 335
3 2009 (4) SCALE 685
4 2009 (7) SCALE 613
5Criminal Appeal No.1674 of 2012(Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.10547/2010)
EVV,J
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed
quashing the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.2728 of 2021 on the file of
learned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal
Malkajgiri District.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 07.02.2025.
KRL
