Smt. Pratima Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 1888 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1888 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 February, 2025

Telangana High Court

Smt. Pratima Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 7 February, 2025

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.6654 OF 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioner/accused

No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in

C.C.No.59 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences

alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498-A and

420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC) and Sections 4

and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.2/de facto complainant in her

complaint alleged that she was married with accused No.1 on

20.06.2010, in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. At

the time of marriage, gold ornaments worth about

Rs.50,00,000/- were given to accused No.1 and

Rs.25,00,000/- was incurred for marriage expenditure, which

includes "Aadpaduchu Katnam" of Rs.5,00,000/-, which were

KS, J crlp_6654_2019

given to the two sisters of her husband. Accused No.1 went to

Germany. Thereafter, several allegations were made by de

facto complainant that her husband, mother-in-law and her

father-in-law were harassing her for more dowry and also

insulted her. According to her narration, she was abused for

not preparing food etc.

4. In so far as petitioner is concerned, de facto

complainant stated that petitioner/accused No.4 used to

encourage accused Nos.1 to 3 to harass de facto complainant

and justified their acts in presence of the 2nd respondent. On

several occasions, petitioner insulted respondent No.2 by

saying that the culture and appearance of de facto

complainant was worse than a labour.

5. The said allegations formed basis to array petitioner as

accused No.4.

6. It is admitted that petitioner was married and living

with her husband in Bangalore from the date of marriage of

accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Even in charge sheet also

petitioner is shown as resident of Bangalore.

KS, J crlp_6654_2019

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently, in the case of Dara

Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana &

Another 1, after considering the parameters laid down in the

decision in "Bhajanlal's Case" and other various decisions of

the Hon'ble Apex Court, has observed that "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, the case should be nipped

in the bud. It is a well-recognized 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 matrimonial discord. Such generalized and

sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or

particularized 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 unnecessarily harassing innocent family members.

2024 SCC Online SC 3682

KS, J crlp_6654_2019

8. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Achin

Gupta vs. State of Haryana and others 2, considered the

similar issue involved in the present case and held that,

lodging of FIR in matrimonial dispute is a serious matter and

permission cannot be granted to abuse the process of law.

After considering various judgments of the Apex Court, the

Apex Court held as under:-

"5. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations leveled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute."

9. The allegations made against petitioner are vague.

Petitioner was admittedly staying in Bangalore and according

to respondent No.2, petitioner commented on physical

appearance of respondent No.2.

10. To constitute 'cruelty' punishable for the offence under

Section 498-A of the IPC, there has to be willful conduct of

2024 SCC Online SC 759

KS, J crlp_6654_2019

such a nature that it is likely to drive the woman to commit

suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life. Secondly,

if there is harassment of a woman with the intention of

coercing her or any person related to her, to meet any