Manne Devender vs The State Of Telangana.
2025 Latest Caselaw 4068 Tel

Telangana High Court

Manne Devender vs The State Of Telangana. on 19 June, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

              THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

                   CRIMINAL PETITION No.596 of 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the

petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against

them in C.C.No.1595 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIX Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Malkajgiri (for short 'trial Court'),

arising out of Crime No.527 of 2020 of P.S. Kushaiguda, registered for

the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short

'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short

'the Act').

2. Heard Mr. C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Mr. M.Sambasiva Rao representing Mr. Pole Vishnu, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 5 are the elder brothers and

petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are the married sisters of accused No.1.

4. The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent-de facto

complainant was married to accused No.1 on 30.06.2018. At the time of

marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. After marriage, the

accused harassed the de facto complainant on every trivial matter, under

one pretext or another and also demanded additional dowry. The

accused No.1 left his job and stayed in the house. Accused No.1

neglected the de facto complainant and also failed to provide minimum

basic needs to her. Unable to bear such harassment, she left the

matrimonial home on 01.06.2019. Since then, she was living at her

parental home. When she delivered a female baby on 02.10.2019, the

accused suspected her character and blamed her. Though the family

members of de facto complainant tried to convince the accused, they

refused to take her back.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that 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 between the de facto complainant and accused

No.1. It is contended that the petitioners herein are staying away from

de facto complainant and accused No.1, therefore, there was no

occasion or necessity for them to harass the de facto complainant. It is

further contended that all the witnesses are family members of de facto

complainant and they are interested witnesses. It is also contended that

except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to them.

Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have

harassed the de facto complainant from the date of her marriage with

accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint

has been lodged. It is further 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, 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:

1992 SCC (Cri) 426

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;

(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

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

2024 INSC 953

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 accused No.1.

A perusal of the record would indicate that no substantial and specific

allegations have been made against the petitioners herein, except stating

that they have harassed the de facto complainant by demanding more

dowry. Not even a single instance of harassment or cruelty or demand of

dowry had been referred against the petitioners. It is also an admitted

fact that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4, who are the married sisters

of accused No.1, are staying away from the family of de facto

complainant and accused No.1. Therefore, there was no occasion or

necessity for them to harass the de facto complainant. Hence, the

petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 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.

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

above, the petitioners cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and

the same would be an abuse of process of the law. Hence, the

proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

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

proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.1595

of 2020 on the file of the learned XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Rachakonda at Malkajgiri.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 19.06.2025 rev