Telangana High Court
Vunukonda Devender A.1 And 7 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 2 May, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.750 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 to 9 seeking to quash the proceedings
against them in C.C.No.44 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial First
Class Magistrate (Excise Court) at Mancherial, arising out of Crime
No.92 of 2019 of P.S. Srirampur, registered for the offences under
Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Mr. G.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent-de facto complainant and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused
the record.
3. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of de facto
complainant. The petitioners-accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 are the mother,
elder sister and younger sister of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused
No.5 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.4. The petitioners-accused
Nos.7 to 9 are the relatives of petitioner-accused No.1.
4. According to the charge sheet, the offences alleged against the
petitioner-accused No.1 are under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC. The
petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 9 are being prosecuted for the offence
under Section 494 of IPC.
5. The gist of the complaint is that the marriage of petitioner-accused
No.1 was performed with the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant on
29.11.2013. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given.
They lived happily for some days and they were blessed with one female
child. Thereafter, on the instigation of petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 6,
petitioner-accused No.1 harassed the de facto complainant physically
and mentally demanding additional dowry and necked her out of the
matrimonial home in the year 2014. As such, she lodged a complaint
against petitioner-accused No.1 and his family members for the offences
under Sections 498-A, 290 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Thereafter, she was staying at her parental house.
While so, on 25.03.2017, the petitioner-accused No.1 went to her parents
house and picked up quarrel with him. With regard to the said incident,
the de facto complainant has lodged another complaint. She has also
filed M.C.No.16 of 2017 seeking maintenance and the same is pending.
The petitioner-accused No.1 frequently used to visit the de facto
complainant and threatened her to divorce him. Though the marriage of
petitioner-accused No.1 with de facto complainant was subsisting, on
10.11.2019, he married accused No.2 in the presence of his family
members i.e., accused Nos.3 to 9.
6. 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 petitioner-
accused No.1. It is contended that Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C. bars taking
cognizance of an offence under Chapter XX of IPC, except on a
complaint made by the person aggrieved of the offence to the
jurisdictional Magistrate. Section 494 of IPC falls under Chapter XX of
IPC. As per the charge sheet, the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 9 were
present at the time of second marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 with
accused No.2. Section 494 of IPC applies to the parties to the alleged
second marriage, but not to the persons who have attended the said
marriage. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of
B.Parvathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1, wherein, it is held as
follows:
"Therefore, as per the definition of complaint under Section
2(d) Cr.P.C., any oral or written allegation that some person
whether known or unknown has committed an offence made to
a Magistrate to take action under the Code is a complaint and
police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is specifically
excluded from its purview. Section 2(r) Cr.P.C. defines "police
report" which means a report forwarded by a police officer to
Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173, which is
LAWS (APH)-2020-5-33
generally termed as charge- sheet. So, only when an allegation
relating to the offence under Section 494 IPC is made by the
aggrieved person to the Magistrate, then only the Court can
take cognizance of the case. Certainly the Court cannot take
cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under
Section 494 IPC on a police report/charge-sheet filed by the
police. Even though offence under Section 494 IPC is made
"cognizable" offence as per amendment Act 3 of 1992, there is
no corresponding amendment made to Section 198 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C. still subsists. The
legal position in this regard is not res nova and it has been
clearly well settled."
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the de facto complainant has earlier lodged a complaint against the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 under Sections 498-A, 290 of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 and the same was registered as
a case in Crime No.5 of 2016. After completion of investigation, charge
sheet was filed before the Court concerned and the same was taken
cognizance as C.C.No.28 of 2017. After conducting full-fledged trial, the
learned Magistrate acquitted the accused therein, who are the petitioners
herein-accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6. Since the petitioners-accused Nos.1
and 3 to 6 were acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC in
C.C.No.28 of 2017, invoking the same Section in the present case is not
maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. It is also contended
that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the
petitioners herein. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 have harassed
the de facto complainant after her marriage with petitioner-accused No.1.
All the accused have performed the second marriage of petitioner-
accused No.1 with accused No.2 as such 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.
9. For the sake of convenience, Section 494 of IPC and Section 198
of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder:
494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.--
Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case
in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place
during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (Exception)--
This section does not extend to any person whose marriage
with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of
competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a
marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such
husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall
have been continually absent from such person for the space of
seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person
as being alive within that time provided the person contracting
such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes
place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted
of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her
knowledge.
198. Prosecution for offences against marriage.- (1) No
Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under
Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except
upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the
offence:
Provided that-
(a) where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is
an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to
make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local
customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in
public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court,
make a complaint on his or her behalf;
(b) where such person is the husband and he is serving in any
of the Armed Forces of the Union under conditions which are
certified by his Commanding Officer as precluding him from
obtaining leave of absence to enable him to make a complaint
in person, some other person authorised by the husband in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) may make a
complaint on his behalf;
(c) there the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under
[Section 494 or section 495) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her
father, mother, sister, son or daughter or by her father's or
mother's brother or sister [,or, with the leave of the Court, by
any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.]
10. Section 494 of IPC deals with bigamy. The provision under Section
198(1) of Cr.P.C. set out the prohibition for the Court from taking
cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of IPC. The
cognizance, however, can be taken only if the complaint is made by
some person aggrieved of the offence.
11. In the instant case, having gone through the record, it clearly
depicts that no complaint was made by the de facto complainant-wife
before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the offence under Section
494 of IPC. On the other hand, she has filed a complaint before the
jurisdictional Police for investigation and the same is not maintainable in
view of the bar enshrined in Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C. The Police, after
concluding investigation have filed charge sheet before the trial Court
and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate without
perusing the mandate under Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C. and issued
process to the accused, which is contrary to law. Even no material was
produced by the prosecution to prove the second marriage of petitioner-
accused No.1 with accused No.2. Therefore, the First Information Report,
charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are
without jurisdiction and the same are liable to be quashed, in view of the
law laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B.Parvathi's case
(supra).
12. For better adjudication of the case, Section 498-A of IPC is also
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.
13. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal
and others 2, 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
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
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.
14. In the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State
of Telangana and another 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph
Nos.18, 25, 31 and 32 held that:
"18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations
made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than
claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant
Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not
provided any specific details or described any particular
instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time,
date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment
occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise
allegations.
25. 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.
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
2024 INSC 953
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."
15. 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.
16. In the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to
the marriage between the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused
No.1. The earlier case i.e., C.C.No.28 of 2017, which was filed by the
de facto complainant against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 for
the offences under Sections 498-A, 290 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
D.P. Act, 1961 was ended in acquittal. Hence, the petitioner-accused
No.1 again being prosecuted for the very same offence i.e., Section
498-A of IPC does not arise and the same is liable to be quashed. Apart
from that, on a perusal of the allegations made in the FIR or charge
sheet, even if they are taken on face value, no substantial and specific
allegations have been made, except stating that on the instigation of
petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 6, the petitioner-accused No.1 has harassed
the de facto complainant by demanding additional dowry. It appears that
the present complaint was 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, in view of matrimonial disputes between
them. In the said circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal's case (supra), the proceedings are
liable to be quashed.
17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 9 in C.C.No.44 of
2021 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise
Court) at Mancherial.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 02.05.2025
rev
