This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
of 2022 of W.P.S. Adilabad, registered for the offences under Section
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
2. Heard Mr. R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent-State. Inspite of service of notice, there is no
representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of de facto
complainant. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the mother and
4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent-de facto
complainant was married to accused No.1 on 05.06.2021. At the time of
marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. After two months from
complainant have given two tulas of gold. Thereafter, the spouses lived
happily for some days. Again in February, 2022, on the instigation of
inhumanly and driven her out of the matrimonial home. The petitioner-
check her mobile. Though panchayats were held in March and April,
their demand of additional dowry was fulfilled. Hence, the present
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
5.1. The petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated
in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view
of the matrimonial disputes. Though the marriage had happened on
05.06.2021, the present complaint was lodged on 23.06.2022 and crime
was registered on 16.07.2022. The reason for such delay in lodging the
complaint and registration of crime was not explained. If really there was
harassment, the de facto complainant should have complained much
earlier.
5.2. The de facto complainant expressed unhappiness about her
marriage with petitioner-accused No.1 as she is working as a
Government Teacher and the petitioner-accused No.1 is unemployed.
The de facto complainant frequently spoke to one person by name
Vishwa. On knowing the same, when the petitioner-accused No.1
confronted the de facto complainant on 27.02.2022, she admitted the
same and promised that she would not repeat it again in future. Since the
said incident created differences between the spouses, a panchayat was
held on 27.03.2022 in the presence of elders. In the said panchayat, the
de facto complainant has given an undertaking that she would not repeat
the same. Inspite of the said undertaking, she continued talking to said
Vishwa which further created differences between spouses.
5.3. The de facto complainant left the matrimonial home without
informing anyone. Inspite of several requests made by the petitioners,
the de facto complainant did not return to matrimonial home. As such,
the petitioner-accused No.1 was constrained to file divorce petition
before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad vide H.M.O.P.No.33 of
2022. On receipt of summons in the said divorce petition, the de facto
complainant has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners as
a counterblast. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are staying away
from the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1, therefore,
there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the de facto
complainant. Except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed
to the petitioners herein, hence, the ingredients of offences alleged
against them are not made out. Thus, he prayed to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits
that the petitioners herein have harassed the de facto complainant
demanding additional dowry after her marriage with petitioner-accused
No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been
lodged. There are specific allegations against the petitioners and 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, she prayed to dismiss the
petition.
7. 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.
8. 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,
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;
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
(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.
9. 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:
"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."
10. 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
2024 INSC 953
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.
11. In the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to
the marriage between the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused
No.1. Though the marriage had happened on 05.06.2021, the present
complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant against the petitioners
herein on 23.06.2022 and crime was registered by the Police on
16.07.2022. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint was not
explained by the de facto complainant. The Investigating Officer has also
failed to explain the delay in registration of crime. It is also an admitted
fact that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the mother and
father of petitioner-accused No.1, are staying away from the family of de
facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1.
12. On the face of the record, it is evident that no substantial and
specific allegations have been made against the petitioners-accused
Nos.2 and 3, other than stating that they instigated petitioner-accused
No.1 in harassing the de facto complainant by demanding additional
dowry. Not even a single instance of harassment or cruelty or demand of
dowry had been referred against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. It
is also not the case of the de facto complainant that any dowry article
was handed over to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. The whole
genesis of allegations levelled in the FIR revolves around the husband
and his conduct. Merely mentioning that the harassment of the husband
was at the instance and instigation of mother and father, who are the
petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, is not enough. Hence, the petitioners-
accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial especially when
there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment for or in relation to
demand of dowry against them.
13. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments referred to
above, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be dragged into
criminal prosecution and the continuation of criminal proceedings against
them amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law. Hence, the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be
quashed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.633
of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Adilabad.
15. Insofar as petitioner-accused No.1 is concerned, this Criminal
Petition is disposed of, dispensing his appearance before the trial
Court, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of
trial, subject to the condition of petitioner-accused No.1 being
represented by his counsel on every date of hearing.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 17.06.2025
rev
