Telangana High Court
Kommineni Kranthi Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 23 June, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6389 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings
against them in C.C.No.2702 of 2022 on the file of the learned III
Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar (for short 'trial Court'), arising out of Crime
No.108 of 2022 of W.P.S. Saroornagar, registered for the offences under
Sections 498-A and 506 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. G.Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. P.Bose Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner-accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1 and
the petitioner-accused No.5 is the wife of petitioner-accused No.4.
4. The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent-de facto
complainant was married to accused No.1 on 05.12.2015. At the time of
marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. After marriage, the
de facto complainant has joined the conjugal society of accused No.1 at
her matrimonial home. After few days, she left to Bangalore on her job
purpose. After 1½ year, on the harassment made by accused, she
resigned her job and started staying at matrimonial home. Accused No.1
and de facto complainant lived happily for few days. Thereafter, on the
instigation made by the petitioners herein and other accused, accused
No.1 harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally and
picked up quarrel with her on every petty issue. All the accused used to
blame her in front of relatives, treated her like a servant and forced her to
do all household works. Accused No.1 never provided any basic
amenities to the de facto complainant and he stated that he is not
interested to continue marital life with her. Whenever quarrel took place
between accused No.1 and de facto complainant, the petitioners herein
and other accused used to abuse de facto complainant in filthy language.
They also demanded additional dowry. The accused intentionally left the
de facto complainant in her matrimonial home and never took 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. The
present complaint was filed in 2022, whereas, the marriage of de facto
complainant with accused No.1 was performed in 2015 and if there was
really harassment, the de facto complainant should have complained
much earlier. The reason for such delay also remained unexplained. 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 the
petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in one tone
contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have
harassed the de facto complainant after 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, they 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;
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
(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
2024 INSC 953
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
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 instigated accused No.1 in harassing the de facto
complainant. 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.4 and 5, who are the
brother and sister-in-law 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.
There are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein as to in
what manner they threatened the de facto complainant causing criminal
intimidation. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 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.4 and 5 in C.C.No.2702
of 2022 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 23.06.2025
rev
