Telangana High Court
Syed Faraz Alias Farees Ahmed, Syed ... 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.10539 of 2023
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.2935 of 2021 on the file of the learned XV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court'), arising
out of Crime No.237 of 2020 of W.P.S. South Zone, registered for the
offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short 'IPC'), Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act,
2019 (for short 'the Act').
2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers, petitioner-
accused No.4 is the unmarried sister and petitioner-accused No.5 is the
married sister 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 19.12.2018 as per the
customs prevailing in the Muslim Community. At the time of marriage,
certain amount of dowry was given. After marriage, they lived happily for
few days. Thereafter, all the accused harassed the de facto complainant
physically and mentally demanding additional dowry. After conceiving of
de facto complainant, her parents started bearing all the expenses.
During her seventh month pregnancy, accused No.1 dropped her at her
parental house. On 01.10.2019, the de facto complainant was blessed
with a baby boy. On the instigation of petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5,
accused No.1 neither paid the hospital expenses nor visited the hospital
to see her and baby boy. On 16.09.2020, the de facto complainant went
to her matrimonial house on knowing the death news of her mother-in-
law. When she went near the dead body, accused No.1 abused her in
filthy language and pronounced triple talaq in the presence of relatives
and community elders. Thereafter, on the instigation of petitioners-
accused Nos.2 to 5, accused No.1 had sent Divorce Certificate from the
Qazi.
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 also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt
acts are attributed to the petitioners and 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, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
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, 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;
(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;
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
(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
No.32 held that:
"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
against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the
husband and his family members.
2024 INSC 953
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. On a careful perusal of contents of the entire charge sheet,
it is evident that there are no descriptive particulars as to in what manner
the petitioners herein have subjected the de facto complainant to
harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry. It is also not the case of the
de facto complainant that any dowry article was handed over to the
petitioners herein. The whole genesis of allegations levelled in the FIR
and charge sheet revolves around the husband and his conduct. Merely
mentioning that the harassment of the husband was at the instance and
instigation of his family members, who are the petitioners-accused Nos.2
to 5, is not enough. Furthermore, there are no specific allegations against
the petitioners herein as to in what manner they have threatened the
de facto complainant causing criminal intimidation and as to how they
have committed criminal breach of trust. Section 4 of the Act deals with
punishment for pronouncing talaq, which is not attracted against the
petitioners herein.
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 sheer 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.2935
of 2021 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 23.06.2025
rev
