Telangana High Court
A.Sridevi , Sreedevi And 4 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 11 March, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.266 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners-accused Nos.5 to 9 seeking to quash the proceedings against
them in C.C.No.245 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at
Alampur, pertaining to Crime No.52 of 2021 of P.S. Undavelly, 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 Sri N.Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
Perused the record.
3. The petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 7 are the sisters of accused
No.1. The petitioner-accused No.6 is the husband of petitioner-accused
No.5. The petitioner-accused No.8 is the wife of petitioner-accused No.9.
The petitioner-accused No.9 is the maternal uncle 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 16.11.2016 and it was an
arranged marriage. It is the case of the de facto complainant that when
2 JS, J
she along with accused No.1 went to the house of petitioner-accused
No.5 for Shivaratri Festival, she questioned the family members of
accused No.1 regarding his illegal relationship with another lady. Then,
all the accused, including the petitioners herein, abused her in filthy
language; harassed her stating that accused No.1 is a Government
Employee; the marriage was not performed to their standards and also
demanded her to bring additional dowry. Finally, on 27.12.2019, all the
accused beat her and necked her out of the matrimonial home.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the
present case has been registered against the petitioners-accused Nos.5
to 9 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 the de facto complainant
and accused No.1, therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for
them to harass the de facto complainant. Moreover, the petitioners-
accused Nos.8 and 9 are the distant relatives of accused No.1. It is
further contended that the present complaint has been filed in 2021,
whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant with accused No.1 was
performed in 2016 and if there was really harassment from the date of
marriage, the de facto complainant should have complained much
earlier. It is further contended that in his reply to the legal notice issued
by the de facto complainant, accused No.1 denied the de facto
3 JS, J
complainant visiting the house of petitioner-accused No.5 for Shivaratri
Festival and stated that she is pursuing her B.Com. by staying at her
parents' house. Hence, the alleged incident of accused harassing the de
facto complainant does not arise and the same is false. It is also
contended that except bald allegations against them, no specific overt
acts are attributed to them.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the
judgment of the Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand 1, wherein, at
paragraph No.33, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth
is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The
tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in
dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized with
great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long
and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and
bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a
matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the
complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to
remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of
amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful.
Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
(2010) 7 SCC 667
4 JS, J
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal
and others 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
5 JS, J
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.
6 JS, J
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 and it
was also arranged marriage. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no
substantial and specific allegations have been made against the
petitioners herein, other than stating that they abused the de facto
complainant in filthy language and used to harass her by demanding
more dowry. None of the petitioners have been attributed any specific
role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. Though
the marriage had happened in the year 2016 and alleged incident had
occurred in the year 2017, the present complaint was lodged in the year
2021 and the reason for such delay remained unexplained.
7 JS, J
12. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners herein, who are the
family members of accused No.1, are staying away from the family of
de facto complainant and accused No.1. The de facto complainant and
accused No.1 have set-up a separate family at Bethamcherla of Kurnool
District and none of the family members of accused No.1 are staying with
them. Moreover, the petitioners-accused Nos.8 and 9 are the distant
relatives of accused No.1. It is common for the family members of either
of the spouses to meet them now and then and the same cannot be
termed as harassment. The petitioners cannot be subjected to
prosecution, merely basing on the bald averments of harassment.
13. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal's case (supra) and Preeti Gupta's
case (supra), since the allegations in the FIR or complaint do not prima
facie disclose the commission of alleged offences against the petitioners,
they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be
an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations
made against each of them. Hence, the proceedings against the
petitioners are liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.5 to 9 in C.C.No.245 of
2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Alampur.
8 JS, J
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 11.03.2025
Note: L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o.
rev
