Telangana High Court
Mogiligidda Nagamma vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6571 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.2, 4 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in
CC No.628 of 2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate
(SpI. Mobile Court), Sangareddy.
2. The brief facts of the case as per defacto
complainant are that she got married to accused No.1 on
18.04.2019. After marriage they lived happily for a period of two
months. Later her husband along with the petitioners herein used
to harass her for additional dowry. The parents of defacto
complainant took her to their home on the occasion of Bonalu, but
after that she was not taken back by her husband to the
matrimonial home. Even when she called him over phone he did
not respond. Therefore, the matter was placed before the elders
and the elders called for the petitioners to negotiate the matter
but none of them responded to resolve the matter. Hence, she
lodged a complaint before Sadashivapet police station,
Sangareddy and a case was registered in Crime No.174 of 2020
for the offences under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for
short IPC) and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for
short DP Act).
3. Heard Mr.D.Y.N.L.N.Charyulu, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Smt.Godugula Vijayalakshmi, legal aid counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi,
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
Perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
police filed charge sheet by deleting the names of petitioners 2 to
5, as no case was made out during investigation. As against the
same, with an intention to harass all the family members the 2nd
respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.95 of 2022 by protesting the deletion
of their names and the trial Court without examining the contents
taken cognizance against all the accused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners with
regard to demand of dowry or cruelty against the respondent
No.2. There is no specific abuse against the defacto complainant
by the petitioners and after the marriage of accused No.1 and the
defacto complainant they were residing separately and only
vague and omnibus allegations are levelled against the
petitioners. Further, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
LW2, Laxmaiah who is the neighbor of the defacto complainant
has categorically stated in his evidence that the petitioners have
not harassed the defacto complainant. While praying to quash the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners, he relied on a
decision held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Aluri Venkata Ramana v.
Aluri Thirupathi Rao & Others 1, wherein in para 17 it was held
as-
Section 498 A recognizes two distinct forms of
cruelty: one involving physical or mental harm in
clause(a) and the other involving harassment linked to
unlawful demands for property or valuable security in
clause(b). These two provisions are to be read
disjunctively, meaning that the presence of a dowry
demand is not a pre requisite for establishing cruelty
under the section. The allegations made by the
appellant, which detail instances of physical abuse
and harassment, fall within the scope of "cruelty" as
defined under clause (a) of Section 498A IPC. The
absence of an explicit dowry demand does not negate
the applicability of the provision where acts of
physical violence and mental distress have been
demonstrated. The core of the offence under Section
498A IPC lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely
revolve around the demand for dowry.
Crl.A No..../2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No.9243 of 2024
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that
there are specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to
harassment made by the petitioners/ A2, A4 to A7, meted out by
the defacto complainant in her complaint and 161 Cr.P.C.
statement. Hence, prays to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that
there are specific allegations against the petitioners and prayed to
dismiss the petition.
8. On perusal of the material placed on record, as per
complaint and charge sheet, there are no specific allegations on
demand of dowry or physical abuse made by the
petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4 to 7 and only general and omnibus
allegations are levelled against the petitioners and they were
residing separately from accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and
there are no specific allegations with regard to harassment made
by the accused and there are no descriptive particulars and
details of instances of said harassment made by the petitioners to
the defacto complainant.
9. It is pertinent here to mention with regard to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshminarayana
Vs. State of Telangana 2, wherein in para 25 it was held as -
A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be nipped in
the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to
implicate all the members of the husband's family
when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial
discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised
allegations cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present case,
appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the
family of appellant No.1 have been living in different
cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house
of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence,
they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and
the same would be an abuse of the process of the law
in the absence of specific allegations made against
each of them.
2024 INSC 953
10. Coming to the present facts of the case, there are
no descriptive particulars given in the case except
general allegations levelled against the petitioners. In view of
the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled
principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of
India in the above decision, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the
petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 7 amounts to abuse of process
of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners-
accused Nos.2 and 4 to 7 are liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4 to 7 in
C.C.No.628 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate at Sangareddy, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 26.03.2025
BV
