Telangana High Court
Jawad Ali Khaja vs State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5033 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against
them in C.C.No.1174 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri (for short 'trial Court'), registered for
the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short 'IPC') and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short
'the Act').
2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Istiyaq Akbar, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Mohd. Shafiuddin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-
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.2 and 3 are the sister and
mother of petitioner-accused No.1.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. The 2nd respondent-de facto complainant was married to petitioner-
accused No.1 on 03.12.2019. At the time of marriage, certain amount of
dowry was given. The de facto complainant has joined the conjugal
society of petitioner-accused No.1 at her matrimonial home. They lived
happily for a couple of days. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.2
and 3 harassed the de facto complainant for want of fridge and also the
costs incurred for reception.
4.2. When the de facto complainant came to know about the extra-
marital affair of the petitioner-accused No.3, she was threatened by
petitioner-accused No.3, not to disclose the same to anyone. When the
de facto complainant informed the petitioner-accused No.1 about the said
incident, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 abused her and also
threatened with dire consequences.
4.3. On 18.01.2020, when a panchayat was held in the presence of
elders, the petitioner-accused No.1 has written a bond paper, promising
to arrange a separate residence. However, he failed to act upon the said
promise and did not take any steps in that regard. The petitioner-accused
No.1 also stopped responding to the calls of de facto complainant and
switched off his phone. On 30.01.2020, on knowing that the de facto
complainant is intending to lodge a complaint against him, the petitioner-
accused No.1 has arranged a room to set-up separate family and
assured the de facto complainant that she would not be harassed by his
family members. Believing the said assurance, the de facto complainant
agreed to return to the house on 01.02.2020 and left to her parental
house. However, on 01.02.2020, she came to know that petitioner-
accused No.1 has lodged a false complaint against her.
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. It is further contended that the de facto
complainant has not even stayed in the matrimonial home for six days.
In fact, the petitioner-accused No.1 intended to take back the de facto
complainant, but she refused for the same. The de facto complainant and
petitioner-accused No.1 have already obtained a decree of divorce. Most
of 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 as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in one tone
contended that the petitioners herein have harassed the de facto
complainant after her marriage with petitioner-accused No.1. 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;
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
(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.
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.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
2024 INSC 953
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
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."
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 petitioner-accused
No.1. Having gone through the complaint, it discloses that the marriage
of de facto complainant was performed with petitioner-accused No.1 on
03.12.2019 and she left her matrimonial home on 06.01.2020. 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 against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, except stating
that they have abused her and threatened with dire consequences. The
de facto complainant has not provided any specific details or described
any particular instance of harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry
against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. It is also not the case of the
de facto complainant that any dowry article was handed over to the
petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2
and 3 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-accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be dragged into
criminal prosecution and the continuation of criminal proceedings against
them amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law. Hence, the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be
quashed.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly-allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.7675
of 2021 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
14. Insofar as petitioner-accused No.1 is concerned, his appearance
before the trial Court is dispensed with, unless his presence is
specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition
of petitioner-accused No.1 being represented by his counsel on every
date of hearing.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 14.07.2025
rev
